Avoiding a traffic ticket may seem like a minor issue at first glance. For some drivers, delaying a process, appointing someone else responsible or exploiting administrative errors appears as a recurring temptation. The problem begins when these attempts stop being mere defensive devices and start to constitute illicit behavior, with a criminal impact and not just an administrative offense.
In practice, according to , schemes associated with traffic violations are seen by authorities as potential fraud against the State. At issue are maneuvers designed to avoid paying fines, losing points on your driver’s license or even more serious additional sanctions. The legal framework exists and is not indifferent to the intention underlying each act.
Among the most common practices identified by entities dealing with these processes are two particularly sensitive situations. On the one hand, the indication of a third party as the alleged driver at the time of the infraction. On the other, the systematic resort to objections and procedural means without serious basis, used only to gain time and push the process until the statute of limitations.
Fake driver identification
The indication of a third person as responsible for the infraction, when he was not driving the vehicle at the time of the events, is not a simple administrative irregularity. From a criminal point of view, this conduct may constitute the crime of false declarations, provided for in article 348-A of the Penal Code.
Under the law, anyone who makes false statements is punished with a prison sentence of up to one year or a fine, if there is no more serious situation resulting from another legal provision. The responsibility does not end, however, in this article.
Whenever the false identification of the driver involves the production, alteration or use of documents, the crime of forgery of documents, regulated in article 256 et seq. of the Penal Code, may also be involved. In this case, the penal framework allows for a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine. If the agent is a public servant and acts in the performance of his duties, the penalty increases to imprisonment for one to five years.
Successive appeals and bad faith litigation
Another strategy frequently associated with the attempt to avoid sanctions involves the systematic filing of administrative or judicial appeals, even when there is no serious legal basis. When the objective is simply to gain time and force the prescription of the administrative offense, the legal system provides for reaction mechanisms.
The interposition of unfeasible procedural means may lead to the driver being classified as a litigant in bad faith, under the terms of articles 542 and 543 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This legal figure presupposes that the agent has acted with intent or serious negligence, deducing claims whose lack of foundation he could not ignore or using procedural instruments in a clearly reprehensible way.
In these cases, the court may sentence the litigant to pay a procedural fine and, in certain situations, to pay compensation to the opposing party, due to the losses caused.
According to the same source, the courts have been taking this type of behavior more strictly, especially when it is demonstrated that the appeal to the Judiciary had the sole purpose of delaying the decision and hindering the action of justice.
In the current framework, the distinction between legitimate challenge and procedural fraud is clear. The right to contest an administrative offense exists and is enshrined in law. The instrumentalization of the system to avoid sanctions can transform a road infraction into a criminal problem with much more serious consequences.
Also read:
