Court of Cassation Issues Landmark Ruling on Recording Phone Calls and Influence Peddling

In a significant judicial ruling with an instructional character, the Court of Cassation in Rabat issued a verdict in a case of influence peddling, which has sparked a legal debate on the admissibility of recorded phone calls as a means of proof in courts.

The Facts and Judicial Path

The case dates back to 2014, when an individual was accused of the misdemeanor of influence peddling following the recording of his phone calls. The Court of First Instance convicted him, but the Casablanca Court of Appeal overturned the initial ruling, deeming the recording of calls an inadmissible means of proof and considering that the defendant’s actions did not constitute the misdemeanor of influence peddling.

The public prosecutor requested that this decision be overturned before the Court of Cassation, arguing that the Court of Appeal had misapplied the law.

The Court of Cassation’s Decision

After extensive deliberations, the Court of Cassation ruled to reject the appeal filed by the public prosecutor, thereby upholding the Court of Appeal’s decision. The court’s reasoning was clear on several points:

1. Recording Calls Does Not Fall Under Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
   The court affirmed that the recording of phone calls by individuals to be presented as evidence is not governed by Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which pertains exclusively to investigation and inquiry bodies (the judicial police). Therefore, such recordings cannot be considered a valid means of proof in a lawsuit.
2. Influence Peddling Requires Specific Elements:
   The court clarified that the crime of influence peddling has specific elements, and that the complainant’s mere claim of negotiation is insufficient to prove it. It also pointed out that the defendant did not ask the complainant to perform or refrain from an act in his capacity as a public official; rather, he was acting outside his official capacity.
3. Proving Financial Resources:
   The court held that a defendant’s financial resources must be proven through legal means, and that his mere denial of a statement made during a conversation does not constitute sufficient evidence.

Legal Implications of the Ruling

This ruling establishes an important legal principle in the realm of individual privacy, affirming that evidence obtained through illegal means (outside the scope of the judicial police) cannot be relied upon for proof. The decision also clarifies the boundary between actions that constitute the misdemeanor of influence peddling and other acts, contributing to a clearer framework for legal prosecutions.