♥️♥️ If you liked this video, don't hesitate to like it, comment and subscribe so you don't miss the next ones. ♥️♥️ If you want to follow our news, join us on our networks: 📸 instagram: / filezdroit 🐦 twitter: / droitfilez ⚠️ Warning ⚠️ This video is only intended to help you understand judgments that are sometimes quite complex. They are in no way intended to replace the doctrine which constitutes a solid source of knowledge. Don't forget that plagiarism is prohibited and severely punished in the academic context. So don't forget to cite your sources and put your quotes in quotation marks. ⤵️ Here is the text of the video ⤵️: The facts of this case are worthy of a police series. Mr. Lacour, visibly very upset with his friend's son, decided to hire someone to eliminate him. But the hired killer, clearly keen to secure a place in heaven, had no criminal intentions. However, he knew that if he refused the offer, another killer would be hired and would collect the money in his place. He then thought of a plan to save the victim and still get paid. To do this, he decided to play a double game: he pretended to accept the contract to kill, with the firm intention of never going through with it. He therefore took part in several meetings with Mr. Lacour with the aim of fomenting the assassination, until he obtained a day and time to carry out the act. But a few hours before the crime was committed, he warned the victim and organized a fake kidnapping so that Mr. Lacour would believe that the mission had been carried out and that the rest of the agreed sum of money would finally be paid to him. A legal problem then arose: since the plan had deliberately failed, is it possible to convict Mr. Lacour of attempted murder? A quick reminder: To demonstrate an attempt, a legal element (listed in Article 121-4) and two material elements (the start of execution and the involuntary withdrawal) must be brought together. According to Article 121-4 of the Criminal Code, “The perpetrator of the offence is the person who […] attempts to commit a crime or, in the cases provided for by law, an offence”. This is the legal element. ➡️ In our judgment, this legal element is easily demonstrable since murder constitutes a crime punishable by life imprisonment according to Article 221-2 of the same Criminal Code. Article 121-5 then sets out the material elements of the attempt: "The attempt is constituted when, manifested by a start of execution, it was suspended or failed to have effect only due to circumstances beyond the control of its author". We will not dwell on the independent circumstances, which we had already studied in the PERDEREAU judgment, the video of which is displayed at the top right of your screen. ➡️ On the other hand, the attempt necessarily requires demonstrating that the author would have been guilty of a start of execution. And this is the point that will be debated in this case: since it was necessary to understand whether, by planning the murder, Mr. Lacour had committed a start of assassination, even though the hitman had taken all precautions to ensure that the crime never took place? The Court of Cassation will then clarify this notion of "start of execution" and produce a clear definition. The High Magistrates explained that "the beginning of execution is only characterized by acts that must have the direct and immediate consequence of committing the crime, the latter having entered the period of execution". This definition is still used today to define the concept, so you can use it in your copies, in order to establish whether or not the attempt is punishable. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between acts of execution and preparatory acts, which do not constitute any criminal offence of a nature to constitute an attempt. Thus, in our specific case, the Court of Cassation will hold that "the act of handing over funds to a henchman charged with killing the designated victim does not have the direct and immediate consequence of committing the crime of murder and only constitutes a preparatory act from the moment when the material executor has refrained from acting". This is how, paradoxically, by not acting to save the victim of the murder, the hitman also saved Mr. Lacour from any criminal repression. But do not worry, today the offense of "criminal mandate" has been established in article 221-5-1, in order to repress the instigator of an assassination and to no longer let this kind of act go unpunished. The judgment: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/i...