Definition
Falsi crimen (Latin: "crime of falsity") is the Roman law concept designating the broad category of offenses involving fraudulent subornation or concealment of truth — any act designed to darken or obscure reality and make things appear other than they are. The term encompasses conduct committed in three recognized modes: by words (as when a witness swears falsely), by writing (as when a person antedates an instrument), or by deed (as when a seller uses false weights or measures).
In classical Roman and early common law usage, falsi crimen functioned as a genus — the overarching category from which more specific offenses were derived. It was broader than forgery and broader than perjury, capturing any dishonest distortion of truth that harmed another's legal interests or corrupted the instruments of civil life.
The term is most frequently encountered today as the Latin counterpart to CRIMEN FALSI, which is its more common formulation in Anglo-American legal discourse and the form that appears in evidence rules governing witness impeachment. The two expressions are functionally interchangeable in modern usage, though falsi crimen more often appears in historical and civilian-law contexts, while crimen falsi is the operative phrase in common law evidence doctrine.
Common Confusion
Falsi crimen and crimen falsi are the same concept expressed in inverted Latin word order. Neither formulation is more authoritative than the other, but researchers must recognize that these terms appear under different headings in historical dictionaries and treatises. A search for one will not always surface the other. The additional risk of confusion involves the relationship of both terms to forgery: historical sources sometimes treat falsi crimen as synonymous with forgery, but the classical concept is considerably broader. Wharton and the primary dictionary sources explicitly define falsi crimen to include false swearing and fraudulent dealing by deed — neither of which constitutes forgery in the modern technical sense. Bouvier's compressed definition ("fraudulent subornation or concealment of truth") captures the essential breadth without limiting it to document fraud.
Why It Matters in Research
The primary research significance of falsi crimen lies in its relationship to the evidence rule on crimen falsi impeachment, which remains active law. When tracing the historical foundations of that rule — whether in case law, treatises, or jury instructions — researchers will encounter falsi crimen as the root concept. Sources from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often use the Latin forms interchangeably and without definition, assuming reader familiarity. A researcher who encounters the phrase without recognizing it as the parent category of crimen falsi may misread the scope of the authority being cited.
The three-part division (words, writing, deed) is significant for corpus research because it signals that historical sources understood falsi crimen as reaching conduct well beyond document fraud. This has direct implications for how courts and commentators defined the boundaries of crimen falsi impeachment in earlier periods — some took the broader view consistent with falsi crimen's classical scope; others contracted it to forgery and perjury only. The divergence in historical sources reflects this unresolved tension.
Researchers working in evidence law, Roman law influence on Anglo-American doctrine, or the history of witness competency and impeachment will find falsi crimen appearing primarily in treatise literature rather than case reporters. Wharton's works are the most frequently cited secondary source in the dictionary definitions, making them the logical starting point for deeper research into the classical framework.
Because the term has no active statutory life in most American jurisdictions — crimen falsi being the operative form in evidence rules — falsi crimen functions primarily as an interpretive and historical reference point rather than a pleading or charging term.
Historical Dictionary Support
The four dictionary sources consulted present a consistent definition with minor variation in compression. Black's (both editions), Rapalje & Lawrence, and Bouvier all agree on the essential character of the offense: fraudulent subornation or concealment of truth designed to misrepresent reality. The three-part mode-of-commission framework (words, writing, deed) appears verbatim in Black's and Rapalje & Lawrence, both attributing it to Wharton — indicating that these entries draw from a common treatise source rather than independent analysis.
Bouvier's entry is the most compressed, offering only the core definitional phrase without elaboration or examples. This makes Bouvier's less useful as a standalone research tool for this term, though it confirms the consensus view.
The Black's first edition entry contains an embedded quotation from Broun distinguishing forgery from falsehood and noting that "the name forgery has been of modern introduction." This is the most historically instructive passage in the corpus: it confirms that falsi crimen, as a concept, predates and exceeds forgery, and that the common law gradually narrowed the broader Roman category into more specific technical offenses. That narrowing is precisely the source of confusion in later sources that treat the terms as equivalent.
None of the dictionary sources address the term's relationship to witness impeachment doctrine, which is where the concept exercises its most durable influence on modern practice. Researchers should not rely on these entries alone when tracing the evidentiary doctrine.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Crimen Falsi; Impeachment of Witnesses; Forgery