Falsification of a precious metal and stone test report by a testing laboratory (Art. 179¹)

Loading…

How is the fine under Article 179¹ calculated?

The fine is not a fixed amount. It is tied to the sum paid for the goods for which the certificate was issued: ten times that sum where the assay of a precious metal was falsified, and three times it where precious stones were concerned.

Who is liable — the laboratory or the employee who signed the report?

The article attributes the act to the testing laboratory (centre) accredited in the field of certification. How liability is divided between the organisation and an individual member of staff is not something the text of the article settles, so it has to be worked out from the case file.

Would a genuine measurement error be treated as falsification?

The article speaks of falsification and links it to a purpose — falsifying the assay of a precious metal, or falsifying a precious stone. Showing that an inaccuracy in the report served no such purpose is therefore often central to the defence.

What should the laboratory prepare first?

The disputed test report and the internal records behind it, the accreditation documents, the certificate that was issued, and proof of the sum paid for the goods. The last of these matters most, because the fine is calculated from it.

5 min·22 Aug 2026

What Article 179¹ is about

The market in precious metals and precious stones rests on the result of a test: a buyer trusts the report drawn up by an accredited testing laboratory, and the certificate issued on the strength of it. Article 179¹ of the Code of Administrative Offences penalises the abuse of exactly that trust — falsification of a test report by a testing laboratory (centre) accredited in the field of certification.

The text of the article attributes the act to the laboratory (centre) itself, and another market participant who relies on a falsified report is not its direct addressee. The article does not, however, set out how liability is divided between the organisation and any particular member of its staff; that cannot be read out of the text and has to be settled from the case file.

Note how narrowly the article defines who it is addressed to: it speaks of a testing laboratory (centre) accredited in the field of certification. That is a qualifying feature rather than description, so one thing worth checking is whether the organisation held precisely that accreditation when the disputed report was drawn up.

Falsification of a precious metal and stone test report by a testing laboratory (Art. 179¹)