In German law there exists the concept of "Scheinrechnung" (lit. "pretence invoice"), which, put simply, is an invoice for something that did not actually happen as claimed.
... It would seem though, that this concept does not cover either of these two actions:
- billing for one task, when in truth a different task was done
- billing on dates where no work happened, when the work has actually happened at different dates
And now I wonder:
- Might this even be legal?
- If not, under what law / offense does it fall?
- Is there a difference whether an employee or a contractor does it?
For the purpose of this question, assume that
- the customer had to pay the same amount of money either way (e.g. due to a subscription model, hourly rate, etc.)
- the wrong statements have been made deliberately
(If further details are necessary, please ask for them in the comments.)
Being mostly a customer (just like everyone else), I'd rather like this to be very much not legal, given that indirect harm may stem from the incorrect information, in an arbitrarily remote future:
- You might have had your car fixed, but the mechanic fixed a different part than reported - when your car breaks next, you will presume it's not the "just fixed" part and might rack up additional mechanic bills (or private time) "on the wrong trail".
- You might be a business trying to analyse your infrastructure needs from work time of contractors - but they actually work on different days, at different hours than reported. If said infrastructure is then lacking (e.g. building closed for renovation), you will pay them for idle time (and might not even notice - given their invoices are wrong).
- You might be a business looking to cut down on expenses - but the expenses you have are not the expenses you know of. So you will cut down on the wrong positions and might disrupt the very processes that earn you money in the first place.
- You might be allergic to a medication administered in hospital, but allegedly you received a different one. (And even if it's a mild allergy requiring no intervention - congratulations, you are now "allergic" to a substance you were never in contact with or tolerated just fine in the past!)
... More cases can easily be constructed, where there is no obvious economic damage (you did receive "your money's worth"), yet "down the line" arbitrarily bad repercussions may arise.
