False declaration in Bulgaria: Art. 313 Criminal Code analysis

Art. 313 of the Criminal Code (НК) is among the most frequently applied provisions on document offences in Bulgarian practice. False declarations to public authorities, tax fraud through VAT returns and false certification in private documents generate hundreds of pre-trial proceedings every year. Even so, a freely available professional analysis of all four paragraphs, the distinctions from related offences and the current case law of the Supreme Court of Cassation (ВКС) practically does not exist.

This article covers the legal framework, a detailed review of each of the four offences, the objective and subjective elements, the key distinctions from Art. 309, 311 and 316 НК, the current ВКС case law (2020-2026) and the practical aspects of the penalty, including release under Art. 78а НК.

Legal framework: Art. 313 НК in the system of document offences

Art. 313 НК is placed in Chapter Nine of the Criminal Code, “Document offences” (Art. 308-319). This chapter covers three main groups of acts: forgery of documents (Art. 308-310), false documentation (Art. 311-314) and use of forged or altered documents (Art. 316). Art. 313 occupies a central place in the subgroup of false documentation and is distinguished by two specific elements: the declarant is a private person (not an official, as in Art. 311), and the document is a declaration required under a normative act.

The provision has been amended several times since the НК was adopted in 1968. The most significant change was the addition of “electronic messages” as an object of the offence, which reflects the digitalisation of administrative procedures. Para. 4, which criminalises false data in securities prospectuses, was added with the adoption of the Public Offering of Securities Act and reflects the specific risks of the capital market.

The four paragraphs: a detailed review of the offences

Art. 313 НК contains four paragraphs, each of which describes a separate offence with different objective and subjective elements. Understanding the differences between them is essential for the correct classification of the act.

Objective element of the offence

The criminal act under Art. 313(1) НК takes two alternative forms: confirming an untruth or concealing the truth. Confirming an untruth means declaring circumstances that do not correspond to reality. Concealing the truth means withholding circumstances that the declarant is obliged to state.

A key element is the requirement that the declaration be given under a law, decree or Council of Ministers Decree. This limitation is essential because it excludes from the scope of Art. 313 declarations required under ministerial ordinances, regulations, instructions or internal acts. In ВКС case law this question has been discussed repeatedly.

Subjective element and intent

The offence under Art. 313 НК is intentional. For all four paragraphs direct intent is required: the offender must be aware that the declared circumstances do not correspond to reality and still consciously confirm the untruth or conceal the truth. Indirect intent (the offender accepts the possibility but is not sure that the data are false) is in principle not sufficient, because the criminal act of “confirming” presupposes certainty.

For para. 2, in addition to the general intent, a special aim is required: avoiding payment of taxes due. This special aim qualifies the act and justifies the higher fine (up to BGN 1000 instead of up to BGN 300). The prosecution must prove not only the false declaration but also the aim of avoiding a tax liability.

Art. 14 НК (mistake of fact) is of essential importance for the subjective element. If the declarant in good faith does not know that the declared circumstances are untrue (for example, because a third party misled them or they did not have current information), intent is excluded and the act is not criminal. The burden of proving knowledge of the falsity lies on the prosecution.

Distinction from related offences: Art. 309, 311 and 316 НК

The correct classification of the act requires a precise distinction of Art. 313 from the related offences in Chapter Nine of the НК. In practice, the distinction between Art. 309 (forgery of a document), Art. 311 (false documentation by an official) and Art. 313 (false declaration) is one of the most frequent problems in classifying document offences.

The key distinction is between a forged document and a document with false content. Under Art. 309 НК the document is forged: it was not drawn up by the person named as its author, or it was altered after it was drawn up. Under Art. 313 НК the document is genuine (authentic): it was issued by the actual declarant, but its content does not correspond to reality. This difference is fundamental and has been interpreted repeatedly by the ВКС.

Special attention is deserved by the link between Art. 313(3) and Art. 316 НК. Under Art. 313(3) the offence consists of two acts: it requires both false certification in a private document and its subsequent use as evidence. If the offender only drew up the document but did not use it, para. 3 does not apply. Conversely, Art. 316 НК criminalises the use itself of documents under Art. 308-314 when the person using them did not take part in drawing them up.

Current ВКС case law (2020-2026)

The ВКС case law on Art. 313 НК covers varied scenarios, from false VAT returns to false declarations for receiving agricultural subsidies from the State Fund Agriculture (Държавен фонд „Земеделие“). An analysis of the current decisions reveals several stable trends.

In a decision of the ВКС, First Criminal Division, of 2026, the court ruled on whether a declaration required under a ministerial ordinance falls within the scope of Art. 313(1) НК. The court confirmed that the requirement for a normative act of the rank of a law, decree or ПМС is strict and is not subject to extensive interpretation. A minister’s ordinance, even if issued in implementation of a law, is not a sufficient legal basis for applying Art. 313.

As regards tax fraud through false VAT returns (Art. 313(2)), the ВКС consistently holds that the special aim, avoiding payment of taxes, must be established by specific evidence and not presumed from the mere fact of the false declaration. In a decision of the ВКС, Second Criminal Division, of 2017 (criminal case No. 208/2017) the court examined a case of a continued offence (продължавано престъпление) under Art. 313(2) in conjunction with Art. 26 НК, connected with multiple false VAT returns for different tax periods. On the link between tax returns and criminal liability, see also our guide to the 2026 tax return.

The case law on agricultural subsidies is of particular interest. In a decision of the ВКС, First Criminal Division, of 2017 (criminal case No. 369/2017) the court examined a case of false declarations submitted to the State Fund Agriculture (ДФЗ) to receive subsidies from European funds. The defence raised an argument of mistake of fact under Art. 14 НК: the defendant claimed that he had believed in good faith in the truth of the declared circumstances. The court rejected this argument, holding that the specific circumstances of the case ruled out good faith.

Penalty and release under Art. 78а НК

The penalties under Art. 313 НК are relatively light compared with other document offences, which reflects the lower degree of public danger of declaration offences compared with forgery of documents. This relative lightness, however, makes Art. 313 one of the most frequent candidates for the application of Art. 78а НК (release from criminal liability with the imposition of an administrative penalty).

Art. 78а НК allows the court to release the offender from criminal liability and impose an administrative penalty of a fine of BGN 1000 to 5000, where the following conditions are met cumulatively: (1) the offence carries imprisonment of up to 3 years or a lighter penalty; (2) the offender has not been convicted of an offence of a general nature (престъпление от общ характер) and has not been released from criminal liability under Art. 78а; (3) the property damage caused has been compensated.

All paragraphs of Art. 313 НК provide for imprisonment of up to 3 years (para. 3: up to 2 years), which means that the condition in letter “а” of Art. 78а(1) is always met. ВКС case law shows that release under Art. 78а is often applied to offences under Art. 313, especially where the act did not cause significant property damage or where the offender has a clean criminal record.

In the case of a suspended sentence under Art. 66 НК (when Art. 78а is not applicable), the typical probation periods for offences under Art. 313 are 3 to 5 years. Actual custodial sentences are rare and are usually imposed for a continued offence with multiple acts and significant property consequences.

Limitation period under Art. 313 НК

The limitation periods for offences under Art. 313 НК are determined by Art. 80 and Art. 81 НК. Since the maximum penalty for all paragraphs of Art. 313 is imprisonment of up to 3 years (and accordingly up to 2 years under para. 3), Art. 80(1), item 5 НК applies: the limitation period is 5 years.

The absolute limitation period under Art. 81(3) НК is one half longer than the ordinary one, i.e. 7 years and 6 months. After the absolute limitation period expires, criminal prosecution is excluded regardless of suspensions and interruptions of the limitation period.

In a continued offence under Art. 26 НК (where the offender has committed two or more acts which separately constitute one or different offences under Art. 313) the limitation period runs from the last act. This is particularly important in tax fraud through multiple false returns for different tax periods, because the last return filed “restarts” the limitation period for the whole series.

Practical tips for lawyers

The defence in cases of offences under Art. 313 НК has several effective lines of argument. The legal basis, the subjective element, the limitation period and Art. 78а НК are the main points to check and possibly challenge.

Pravko provides legal information but does not replace consultation with a lawyer. For specific cases under Art. 313 НК, contact a lawyer who specialises in criminal law.