Introduction

The laws that seek to prevent and combat white collar crimes produce a significant impact on the
responsibility and effectiveness of the internal control processes of the United States. These laws
can be considered in the white collar crimes contemplated by the Puerto Penal Code. Rico for the
internal control (public and private) of the State, however, the crimes expressed by the Penal
Code of Puerto Rico of 2012 are examined and having both the federal and state legal bases for
white collar criminal acts, the case of the Notary Betancourt of the Commonwealth in the crime
of falsification of documents.

Development

The term “white collar crime” is a term that dates back to December 27, 1939, at the annual
meeting of the American Sociology Society when in its inaugural lecture Edwin H. Sutherlan
spoke these words, being an American sociologist and president of said society (González
Sanchez, 2011).

First of all, it is important to remember the legal configuration of Puerto Rico vis-à-vis the United
States, which is designated in the Constitution approved by the United States Congress that came
into force in 1952, where Puerto Rico defines itself. as a Commonwealth, with independence of
autonomy for internal governance issues, but subject to the sovereignty of the US Federal
Congress in aspects of citizenship, national defense, commercial traffic and currency. The
Constitution of Puerto Rico is therefore designed according to the North American state
constitutions, and its residents have a level of autonomy similar to the citizens of a state of the
United States; It also has a republican state of government, divided into three branches:
Legislative Branch, Executive Branch and Judicial Branch (Puerto Rico Judicial Branch, sf).

With respect to the US Federal Congress, federalism is a political system by which government
positions are distributed between a central power and some associated states. It is worth
mentioning that below federal power is the power of the states and then at a lower level is local
power. For the management of the states, each one has an elected governor and its own
legislature, which applies to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The power of the Federal Government is distributed among three branches: executive, legislative
and judicial, seeking a system of balances between them. Regarding the Judicial Branch, it is
made up of the Federal District Court (federal district courts), the Federal Circuit Court of
Appeals (appeals courts) and the Supreme Court of Justice (Supreme Court). These have
exclusive powers to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law and apply it in
individual cases (United States political system – elEconomista.es, sf); although for actions in the
District of Puerto Rico its jurisdiction is limited, which is why it can handle particular cases that
violate the US Constitution, federal laws, treaties with Puerto Rico, maritime laws, matters
between states or citizens of different countries. states or exceptionally if it is voluntarily
requested to transfer a case that is a federal matter or that is permitted by law.

At the federal level, white collar crimes mostly derive from Title 18 and Title 26 of the United
States Federal Code and are investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (Foley,
2019). Some of the crimes contemplated by the US federation are:

Embezzlement: also known as theft, which occurs when a person unfairly appropriates funds
that have been entrusted to his or her care but belong to another. Commonly, those who commit
this type of crime are employees, partners, contract workers, such as bank tellers, department
store employees, office managers, accountants and stockbrokers.

Extortion: according to the federal code, extortion is carried out when someone, verbally or in
writing, threatens someone to accuse them of a crime, expose them to some dishonor, reveal a
secret that may affect them, accuse them of some anomaly/lack of chastity or threaten them with
cause any injury to your person, reputation or property, with the intention of stealing money,
gaining an advantage or forcing you to do something against your will.

Forgery: defined as the modification, imitation, fraudulent manufacture, or falsification of

documents that are presented as original and legal with the intention of causing harm and
defrauding another person and/or entity.
Machinations/Plans to defraud: it is an action that occurs systematically with the intention of
defrauding someone, of obtaining property, using the deliberate misrepresentation of a fact in the
future, also through unrealistic/fraudulent claims, statements or promises.

There are many types of crimes covered, so some will be mentioned: mortgage fraud, credit card
fraud, insurance fraud, bad checks, identity theft, public corruption, violating copyrights, internet
crimes, among others.

For this reason, the United States has seen as a defense and prevention strategy the creation of
regulatory mechanisms that discourage criminal acts, either through the creation of entities that
allow strict monitoring of accounting procedures, or with the management of resources that
allows the recovery of money due to fraud, with education projects so that the population can be
attentive and prevent, or with the maximization of penalties for those who abuse the power of
their public positions, as well as the expansion of crimes for public officials who act for their own
benefit or for convenience, in the same way procedures that can prevent public officials from
receiving an extra monetary benefit, finally to prevent them from bribing foreign government
officials to commit a crime in their favor. All this through laws such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
the Fraud Control and Recovery Act (FERA), the Affordable Care Act, the Act to Improve the
Prosecution of Public Corruption, the Restoring Honest Service Act, the Hobbs Act, and the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

On the other hand, the Penal Code of Puerto Rico contemplates in Title II.- Crimes against
property Chapter I.- Crimes against Property and Patrimonial Rights, Section One – Illegal
appropriations, as in the following:

Article 181.- Illegal appropriation; Article 182.- Illegal aggrieved appropriation; Article 185.-
Interference with meters and distribution systems; Article 186.- Use or interference with pay
television communication or broadcast equipment or system; Article 187.- Illegal operation of
any device for recording or transferring images and sound; Article 188.- Reproduction and sale
without the name and legal address of the manufacturer.

Third Section – Regarding extortion, the following: Article 191.- Extortion.

Seventh Section – Regarding fraud, the following: Article 202.- Fraud; Article 203.- Fraud by
computer means; Article 204.- Fraud in the execution of works; Article 205.- Fraudulent use,
possession or transfer with electronic bands; Article 206.- Fraud in competitions; Article 207.-
Undue influence on radio and television.

Section Eight – On identity theft, the following: Article 208.- Imposture; Article 209.- Illegal
appropriation of identity.

Chapter II.- Crimes against the security of transactions, Section One – Forgery ranging from
article 211 to 221, all types of crime associated with the falsification of documents, ideology,
entries in records, stamps, licenses, certificates and other documentation, filing of false
documents or data, position and transfer of falsified documents, instruments for falsification,
alteration of data that identify musical, scientific or literary works, professional or occupational
practice.

Second Section – Crimes against security in commercial transactions, such as the following:
Article 221.- Money laundering, Article 222.- Insufficient funds, Article 223.- closed, non-
existent account and improper detention of payment, Article 224 .- Knowledge of non-payment,
Article 225.- Interpellation, Article 226.- Non-payment after interpellation, Article 227.- Payment
on time, Article 228.- Illegal use or possession of credit cards and debit cards, Article 229.- Use
of scanning or encoder devices.

It is notable that the articles previously stated cover all types of illicit acts associated with white
collar crimes, so the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has sufficient laws to cover and prosecute
related criminal acts, which are subject to the Federal Code. of the United States those acts that
go against the federation such as terrorist acts of cyber attacks, it is also possible for the
Federation Courts to process cases where one of the parties brings it for their consideration as
long as the case has any matter that is regulated or defined in the US Constitution, in a federal
law or any US treaty that applies to Puerto Rico.

Jointly, the federal courts may request an interjurisdictional certification from the Supreme Court
of Puerto Rico when a fact has been presented before a federal court in which Puerto Rican Law
also participates, which serves to resolve the case and there is no clarity of explanation in the
jurisprudence of the Court. Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.

Having clarified all the legal aspects of Puerto Rico, especially in the criminal field with the
preeminence of white collar crimes, we move on to explain the case of document falsification in
the People v. Flores Betancourt, 124 DPR 867 (1989).

Said case occurred in the State of Puerto Rico, whose ruling was given by the Supreme Court of
Justice of Puerto Rico on December 7, 1989, against Anibal Flores Betancourt.

The intervening parties are The People of Puerto Rico, appellee vs. Anibal Flores Betancourt,
accused and appellant.

Because it is a public case where the People of Puerto Rico are the ones suing, the jurisdiction of
said case is maintained under the Penal Code of Puerto Rico, which, as mentioned above, has
autonomy for the application of its laws, independently of the Federal Code of Puerto Rico. USA

The Honorable Judge Crisanta González de Rodríguez is the one who condemns the accused for
having committed the crime of falsification of documents, sentencing him to 9 years in prison
with the suspension of his duties as a notary.

As the case dates back to the 1980s, the Penal Code in force on that date is the Penal Code of
Puerto Rico of 1974 and is the code to be considered for the analysis of the case.

In the Penal Code of Puerto Rico of 1974, for the crime of falsification of documents, its laws are
located in Section Eighteen (Crimes against Public Faith), Chapter III (Forgery) of the Special
Part of the Code, Articles 271 to 276, which also They belong to the closing of the articles of the
Code.

It is noteworthy to mention that the Article for falsification of documents that in the 1974 Code is
found in Article 271, while in the current Code (2012) is found in Article 211, the essence of the
crime remains, it only presents modifications in the sanction, having been significantly reduced in
years but having added an amount of fine in dollars.
Regarding the core conduct exposed for the falsification of documents, it is presented in Article
271, where it penalizes “Any person who, with the intention of defrauding another, makes, in
whole or in part, a false document, instrument or writing, by means of which creates, transfers,
terminates or otherwise affects any right, obligation or interest, or that falsely alters, limits,
suppresses or destroys, in whole or in part, a true one.

While Article 272 criminalizes the use of a falsified document, which condemns “Any person
who, with the intention of defrauding another, possesses, uses, circulates, sells, passes or tries to
pass as

"genuine or true any document, instrument or writing specified in the previous section, knowing
that they are false, altered, falsified or imitated."

As can be seen, the core reason for the crime focuses on the conduct with which it is carried out,
which in this sense is the intention to defraud another person or the State. Therefore, it seems that
the fact of making or modifying a document for falsification is not relevant, but rather the
intention to defraud another person, that is, the harmful effects that may be caused to the
interested party by the original document. Another aspect of the Code is that it does not make a
distinction between authors of the illegal act, whether a public or private official, both will have
the same treatment.

In the case of Notary Anibal Flores Betancourt, his responsibility as a notary is stipulated and
how delicate it is for a public official to forge a signature to then authenticate the document,
describing the latter as a serious offense by Article 258 (False certifications) and which according
to the ruling is perceived as a disregard for the values that a notary public must possess in the
exercise of his public function, thus contemplating the violation of the Notarial Law of Puerto
Rico.

Another concept to clarify is that of the Declaration of Heir, which is nothing more than a
procedure that seeks to protect the transmission of assets from deceased persons to their
legitimate heirs in the absence of a valid will.

The case corresponds to the fact that Mr. Flores intended to defraud Margarita González
Delgado, falsely imitating the signature of Mr. Victor M. Martínez Hernández, who has died, in
the registration of a motor vehicle to transfer the license of a truck (left by the deceased) in favor
of Nohemí Nieves Pérez, in which process Mr. Flores in turn intervened as a notary public.

Mr. Flores appeals his case, pointing out three errors:

The first error: is that the trial court did not declare peremptory acquittal, based on the fact that
the essential element of criminal intent was not established, which in this case is to defraud.

The second error: refers to the fact that the jury found him guilty without having further evidence
but only an uncorroborated confession from the appellant.

The third error: that the evidence rested entirely on the appellant's uncorroborated confession.

Later, Judge Hernández Denton, studying the opinion presented for appeal, issues his opinion
after reviewing all the facts considered in the case, examining the parade of evidence in detail and
framing them in the law and doctrine, and concludes that the issue of the declaration of acquittal
peremptory because it is based on an uncorroborated confession is, in his opinion, a “patently
frivolous” argument, since in addition to his confession, he was accompanied by the testimonies
of Victor Martínez (seller of the truck part of Carlos López's inheritance) and Margarita González
(widow of Carlos López), who testified that the signature on the license transfer did not belong to
Carlos López, in addition, Mr. Carlos Vélez, representative of the Department of Transportation
and Public Works, also testified, who recognized that the vehicle was indeed registered in the
name of Noemí Nieves (lover of the deceased) who does not have any type of legal right over
Carlos López's inheritance.

Another issue that should be noted is that Mr. Flores mentions the sentence that was imposed on
him, however, according to the 1974 Penal Code, the sentence is nine (9) years, so Judge
Hernández Denton does not see any abuse demonstrated by him. of the court.

In disagreement, Associate Judge Mr. Rebollo López states his concern about the case because he
explains that a new crime is being created for the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico, violating the
principle of legality since he details that the intention to defraud another refers to another person
and not to the State, these being different people. In this case, Associate Judges Negrón García
and Alonso Alonso reportedly did not intervene.
In the NOTES AT THE FOOT OF THE OPINION it is explained that Mr. Flores Betancourt, in
addition to having been dismissed from his position as notary, was separated from the practice of
law. It is stated that Noemí Nieves never told him that she was the widow in the case. It is also
explained that the Legislative Assembly can validly eliminate the mental element from the
classification of the crime, this has to do with what is stipulated in the article of intention to
defraud, which is contemplated as a mental element that can only be determined by the
concurring evidence.

And it is highlighted that in Anglo-American common law , for a century it has been stipulated
that the State can be taken as harmed “persons.” On the other hand, Article 275 of the Penal
Code, which criminalizes the falsification of licenses, certificates and diplomas or similar records
issued by officials of the Commonwealth, requires that they be issued by a government agency,
dependency or instrumentality, which explains why the legislator has taken the objective of
defrauding the State.

In the latest opinions they reiterate that they are not convinced that Mr. Betancourt acted out of
"penalty" to help the supposed widow without financial resources since he charged for the
affidavit, and that lawyers can provide legal services for free, being able to help the alleged
widow in the process of declaring heirs. They also allege that although he may have had the
intention of helping, he was fully aware of the fraud that was being attempted in the registration
of the vehicle, which is not a reason to exclude him or save him from the crime but it could
mitigate the years of punishment for the crime committed. .
Conclusion

After reviewing the provisions of federal laws regarding white collar crime, being a crime that is
mainly characterized by being carried out by people who occupy positions of power and whose
power allows them to carry out fraudulent acts, scams, among others, which thus Its scope has
also been extended, allowing ordinary people but with certain skills to also participate in this type
of crime such as internet scams, money laundering, among others, expanding the meaning that
this term initially had and leading it to mean more. well, a type of crime that does not generate
physical or violent harm to another person but that still produces damage or harm to the rights,
duties or benefits that another may have.

The laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico began to investigate white-collar crimes in its
Penal Code, as well as the spheres of participation of the Federal Courts of the United States in
State cases, as well as the powers of each its scope and limitations.

With all this, the case of the People against Betancourt is finally analyzed, in a crime of
falsification of documents that was brought before the Supreme Court of Justice with a guilty
verdict in his role as a notary, violating the notary laws in Puerto Rico. Which was then taken to
the appeals court where the sentence is upheld, after having reviewed the case in detail, taking
into account the testimonies, the witnesses, and the evidence. The latest opinions or
considerations of the case were also taken into account.

The Penal Code of 1974 in its Article 271 clearly describes the crime of document falsification as
the creation or modification of any false document, instrument or writing that affects another
person and that is done with the purpose of defrauding. The controversy arises when a public
official, having committed an act of forging a signature on a document that legally transfers
property from one person to another, alleges that said forgery did not have the intention of
defrauding a specific person and that instead He intended to help. The situation is complicated
when said official is also the one who validates or certifies the document or transfer in question.

The final sentence after the appeal, finding the accused guilty, is appropriate since if it is believed
that the reason for the forgery of the signature was to help, being a notary he has full awareness
and knowledge of the Notarial Law of Puerto Rico and understands that What he commits is a
fraud against the State that has trusted him with legal tasks that also protect citizens. If he had
been found innocent in that regard, he would have threatened the population with distrust towards
the legal institutions that are supposed to protect and maintain order through their laws.

Likewise, the defendant notary suggests his guilt in having received money that did not
correspond to his services for carrying out said forgery, a fact that questions his supposed
intentions to help an indigent widow and also questions the indigence of the widow who cannot
process the declaration of heirs but pay the notary for the falsification for the transfer of the
license. Two facts that manifest the intention to defraud the true heirs in the case, both on the part
of the notary and on the part of the supposedly indigent widow.

On the other hand, article 271 establishes that the crime occurs when there is an intention to
defraud another, which is mentioned as a mental fact and not a corroborable physical fact such as
falsification of documents. This loophole allows the accused to try to demonstrate that at no time
did he have the intention to defraud someone in particular and this is why an investigation is
opened that allows the concurrence of evidence that shows that in fact there was an intention to
defraud, not only one person. person in particular but to the State itself as he is a public official
who owes himself to institutional values. Although the evidence was robust enough to find guilt,
the fact of having to prove an intention of mental essence creates a vacuum that can be very well
taken advantage of by the criminal to justify and succeed in the court case. On the other hand, if
the simple act of forgery were established in the law as falsification of documents, there would be
no room for doubt that a crime has been manifested, as is the case in the Cuban Penal Code
where “all the criminal figures of forgery are configured even if it was not done with the intention
of defrauding another” (Garay, 2002).
Bibliographic references

Penal Code of Puerto Rico [CPPR]. Law 115 of 1974. July 22, 1974 (Puerto Rico).
Wordpress.Com. Retrieved July 28, 2021, from
https://expresionlibretrespuntocero.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/cc3b3digo-penal-1974.pdf

Penal Code of Puerto Rico [CPPR]. Law 146 of 2012. July 30, 2012 (Puerto Rico).
Bvirtualogp.Pr.Gov. Retrieved July 28, 2021, from
https://bvirtualogp.pr.gov/ogp/Bvirtual/leyesrereference/PDF/Justicia/146-2012/146-
2012.pdf

Foley, R. (2019). Federal Crimes. Robertfoleylaw.com.

https://www.robertfoleylaw.com/es/federal-crimes/

Garay Auban, M. R. (1989). The crime of falsification of documents in the Penal Code of Puerto
Rico. Lexjuris.Com. https://www.lexjuris.com/revistaponce/volumenes/2002Vol41-2/El
%20delito%20de%20falsificacion%20de%20documentos%20en%20el%20Codigo
%20Penal.pdf

González Sánchez, P. (2011). White collar crimes. OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST.

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3816236.pdf

Judicial Branch of Puerto Rico (sf). Educational Guide: Our Government and Court System.
Judicial Power.Pr. Retrieved July 28, 2021, from
https://www.poderjudicial.pr/documentos/orientacion/Guia_Educativa-1.pdf

United States Political System - elEconomista.es. (n.d.). Eleconomista.Es. Retrieved July 28,
2021, from https://www.eleconomista.es/especiales/elecciones-estados-unidos/sistema-
politico.php

124 DPR 867 (1989) TOWN V. FLORES BETANCOURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
PUERTO RICO. (n.d.). Silo.Tips. Retrieved July 28, 2021, from
https://silo.tips/download/124-dpr-867-1989-pueblo-v-flores-betancourt-en-el-tribunal-
supremo-de-puerto-ric