Fraud in Civil Law: Definition and Consequences

In civil law, fraud (or dolus) is defined as:

“The dolose deception exercised by one party upon the other, to induce it to conclude a legal act that it would not otherwise have concluded.”
— Italian Civil Code, art. 1439
(Similarly: BGB §123 in Germany, Código Civil art. 1265 in Spain, Código Civil Federal art. 1815 in Mexico)

The constituent elements are three:

1. An intentional deception (not a mistake);
2. A causal nexus (without the deception, the act would not have been performed);
3. Damage or disadvantage to the victim.

When these elements are present, the law provides two fundamental consequences:

• Nullity of the act (or voidability);
• Right to compensation (if applicable).

But there is an even more radical principle:

One who acts in a state of deception is not legally responsible for the consequences of the fraudulent act.

1. The Current System as Collective Fraud

Let us now apply this definition to the political system that today we call “representative democracy.”

1. The intentional deception

The system claims to be based on:

• “Power derives from the people”;
• “Representatives act on behalf of citizens”;
• “The vote is an act of delegation.”

But, as demonstrated in previous articles:

• The vote is not a delegation (it is neither specific, nor revocable, nor responsible);
• The citizen has no power to transfer (“nemo dat quod non habet”);
• Representatives are not bound by any mandate.

The deception is not marginal. It is structural and systematic.

2. The causal nexus

Without the belief in “electoral delegation,” citizens would not participate in the system.

They would not pay taxes with a sense of duty.

They would not obey laws perceived as illegitimate.

They would not feel morally responsible for decisions made by others.

The entire legitimacy of the system depends on the deception.

3. The damage

The damage is evident:

• Loss of decision-making sovereignty;
• Subjection to unwanted laws;
• Obligation to finance policies contrary to one’s own interests;
• Impossibility of real control over rulers.

All the elements of fraud are present.

2. The Legal Consequences: Rights of the Victims

If the system is fraudulent, then every legal act deriving from it is vitiated.

But what are the concrete rights of those who discover they are victims of fraud?

1. Nullity of obligations contracted under deception
   According to art. 1442 of the Italian Civil Code:
   

   “The party that has suffered the dolus may request the annulment of the contract.”

   Similarly, in Germany (BGB §123), Mexico (art. 1818 CCF), France (art. 1137 CC), fraud renders the act voidable.
   Political application:
   If taxes, laws, regulations derive from a system founded on deception, they are not legitimate obligations — but vitiated acts, which the victim may refuse.
2. Prohibition of unjust enrichment
   A universal principle of law (art. 2041 c.c. in Italy, “unjust enrichment” in common law) states:
   

   “Whoever enriches himself without just cause to the detriment of another is obliged to restitute.”

   Political application:
   If the State collects taxes based on a fictitious mandate, it enriches itself without legal cause.
   The victim has the right to restitution — or, at least, to non-recognition of the obligation.
3. Exemption from liability for non-performance
   If a contract is null due to dolus, one who does not respect it is not in breach — because no valid obligation exists.
   Political application:
   One who refuses to obey laws born from a fraudulent system is not a “rebel,” but a victim exercising a right.

3. Common Objections — and Why They Do Not Hold

“But the laws are public! There is no deception.”
The deception is not about the form of the law, but about the legitimacy of its origin.
It is not a matter of “not knowing what the law says,” but of not knowing that the system producing it is based on a legal fiction.

“If everyone did this, chaos!”
No. Victims of fraud do not destroy. They restore legality.
Chaos does not arise from rejecting fraud — but from its prolongation.

“Criminal law is different from civil law!”
True. But criminal law presupposes the legitimacy of the legal order.
If the legal order is founded on fraud, it loses its moral and legal authority — and criminal law becomes a tool of coercion, not of justice.

4. The Next Step: Not Obedience, but Disengagement

Being a victim of fraud does not mean “doing whatever one wants.”

It means refusing to recognize the validity of acts born from deception.

This translates into:

• Not voting, because voting would confirm the fiction;
• Not justifying one’s obedience with phrases like “I voted, so I must respect”;
• Not participating in rituals of legitimization (elections, symbolic consultations);
• Building alternatives based on real delegations.

It is not civil disobedience.

It is legal disengagement: the right to exit from a vitiated contract.

Conclusion: Fraud Does Not Create Obligations — It Creates the Right to Free Oneself from Them

The current system is not “imperfect.”

It is fraudulent.

And victims of fraud are not guilty if they refuse to respect acts born from deception.

On the contrary: they would be guilty if they continued to legitimize it.

Claiming the status of victim is not an act of rebellion.

It is an act of legal coherence.

Because the law does not demand obedience to every power.

It demands recognition only of what is legitimate.

And fraud — by definition — is not legitimate.