The court responded to this argument by stating that the warrant was issued based on explicit and clear investigations that included sufficient information that justify its issuance. It pointed out that the seriousness of such investigations is subject to the investigative authority under the supervision of the trial court, and that it is not subject to review as long as the warrant was issued in connection with a crime that was committed. The court then tackled the merits of the case, indicating that the crime of fraud, under Articles 231 and 232 of the Penal Code, entails fraud that leads to the delivery of funds based on legally defined deception.

This was not proven in the case at hand, as the documents contained no evidence of the delivery of funds or the identification of victims. The court added that the accusation presented by the prosecution was vague and lacked a precise statement of the facts, rendering the crime tainted by obfuscation and preventing the formation of a definitive judicial opinion. The court acquitted the defendant, pursuant to Article 172/1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.