This repeats the language of the indictment. The phrase "sur le territoire national" established the jusrisdiction of the court. The phrase I find most often used in English-language indictments is: "at all times relevant to this indictment". That makes me think that "en tout cas" and "depuis temps non prescrit", which are used in french-language rulings and indictments with some minor variation in word order, are simply intended to imply that despite the fact that a period of time for the offenses is specified (here, 2001-2006), the case very seldom hangs on a precise determination of the time of the offense. It may arise at some point, at trial or on appeal, that there are other offenses which took place before the specified dates, or after, or that the specified dates are imprecise.

But in common law,

http://touchngo.com/ap/html/ap-1922.htm

Even in the heyday of common-law pleading, when a murder conviction could be overturned because the indictment did not set forth the length and depth of the [victims] mortal wounds or because the indictment specified that the victim was stabbed in the brest rather than the breast,2 the courts recognized one aspect of criminal pleading where exacting specificity was not required: the allegation as to the date of the offense.

[T]he common law, although it required the
accusation to mention some date, did not
require the prosecution to stick to that
date; proof of any date within the period of
the statute [of limitations] would suffice to
convict.

Austin Scott, Fairness in the Accusation of Crime, 41 Minnesota Law Review 509, 532 (1957).3

This same flexibility is carried forward in the more lenient pleading rules that govern modern criminal litigation:

Traditionally, time and place have been
viewed as not requiring great specificity
because [these factors] ordinarily do not
themselves constitute an element of [the]
crime. Thus, the time allegation can refer
to the event as having occurred on or about a
certain date and, within reasonable limits,
proof of a date before or after that
specified will be sufficient, provided it is
within the statute of limitations. [The
exception is for cases where] time is a
material element of the offense ... .
Wayne R. LaFave, Jerold H. Israel, and Nancy

J. King, Criminal Procedure (2nd ed. 1999),

19.3(b), p. 773.

LaFaves description of the law on this point is echoed in Professor Charles Alan Wrights treatise on modern federal
criminal procedure.4 Professor Wright states that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow substantial flexibility in the
indictments description of the date of the crime:


[G]ood pleading still includes an
allegation that [the] offense was committed
on a particular day, month, and year, but a
defect in the allegation of the date is a
defect of form only. Obvious errors in the
date alleged will be ignored, and great
generality in the allegation of date will
suffice, though [a] defendant may be entitled
to a bill of particulars if the allegation is
too general to permit him to prepare his
defense. The allegation [of the date] is not
regarded as ... an essential element of the
crime, and, within reasonable limits, proof
of any date before the return of the
indictment and within the statute of
limitations is sufficient [unless] a
particular [date] is made material by the
statute creating the offense.

Federal Practice and Procedure Criminal (3rd

ed. 1999), 125, Vol. 1, pp. 573-77.


Therefore, while I would avoid "since" in English, the meaning of the phrase itself could either be translated for its clear meaning, or by "at all times relevant to the charges", since it is just a catch-all like the phrase about national territory - that is, the offenses may turn out to have been committed elsewhere, but a mistake about their exact location is not in and of itself a flaw in the indictment or cause for acquittal. And neither is one about the time.

http://www.legalis.net/jurisprudence-decision.php3?id_articl...

PROCEDURE

Par ordonnance de l’un des juges d’instruction de ce siège en date du 26 août 2005, Farhat A. et Jean G. ont été renvoyés devant ce tribunal correctionnel pour,

Farhat A. :
- Avoir à la Ferté Bernard, en tout cas sur le territoire national, courant 2003 et 2004, en tout cas depuis temps non prescrit, sans autorisation de leurs auteurs et au préjudice de Monique H., et l’Agence pour la Protection des Programmes, reproduit par tout moyen et sous toute forme, en tout ou partie, de façon permanente ou provisoire les 46 logiciels énumérés aux tableaux annexés,

http://www.legalis.net/jurisprudence-decision.php3?id_articl...

Par ordonnance du 25 mai 1994, les susnommés ont été renvoyés devant ce tribunal sous la prévention :

Marilia D. et Serge R. :

- d’avoir à Paris, courant 1987, 1988 et 1989, en tout cas, sur le territoire national et depuis temps non prescrit, procédé ou fait procéder à des traitements automatisés d’informations nominatives sans que ceux-ci, préalablement à leur mise en oeuvre,

http://www.daubertontheweb.com/second_circuit.htm

Various witnesses testified that defendant committed numerous intentionally fraudulent acts over extended period of time.

http://www.minnlawyer.com/decisions.cfm?casenum=A05-76

Citing State v. Poole, 489 N.W.2d 537 (Minn. App. 1992), aff’d 499 N.W.2d 31 (Minn. 1993), the state argues that Stempf does not apply to a sexual-abuse case. The Poole defendant was convicted of 16 counts of third- and fourth- degree criminal sexual conduct for acts committed against 11 victims during a three-year period. This court rejected the defendant’s argument that the inclusion of alternative dates denied him his right to a unanimous verdict. 489 N.W.2d at 543-44; see also State v. Cross, 577 N.W.2d 721, 726-27 (Minn. 1998) (jury need not unanimously agree on the incidents establishing a pattern of domestic abuse); State v. Becker, 351 N.W.2d 923, 927 (Minn. 1984) (permitting the state to charge multiple acts of sexual abuse over an unspecified period of time)

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/aljdec/id77grl.txt

Furthermore, the violations were not isolated. In fact, the violations occurred over an extensive period of time, involved numerous different securities, and clearly reflected the use of a broker-dealer to perpetrate a systematic, organized fraud.

http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/indictments/KrsticAmende...

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

15. At all times relevant to this indictment, a state of armed conflict existed in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

16. At all relevant times, RADISLAV KRSTIC was required to abide by the laws and customs governing the conduct of war.

http://www.sc-sl.org/Documents/SCSC-03-01-I-001.html

18. While in Libya, the ACCUSED formed or joined the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL). At all times relevant to this Indictment the ACCUSED was the leader of the NPFL and/or the President of the Republic of Liberia.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/reid_indictment.ht...

The Grand Jury charges that:

1. At all times relevant to this count brought under Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 113B--Terrorism, Al-Qaeda was a designated foreign terrorist organization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1189.



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2006-07-22 21:58:15 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Looking again at the references, it appears that the phrase "over an extensive period of time" might also be usable, since in this case the specified dates are already pretty extensive.



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2006-07-22 22:00:26 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I realize that some of the references concern indictments rather than rulings as such (or decisions). But it seems that the phrase "at all relevant times" or "at other times, not specified" could still appear even in a decision, based on the above arguments to the effect that a decision does not stand or fall by the sole precision of the dates of the alleged offense.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 hrs (2006-07-22 22:54:34 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I notice also in the references the more familiar "on or about" (some date). In the text a date (or a time period) is given, but the same principle of law is involved: you can be convicted of a crime even though the prosecution cannot prove the exact moment at which it occurred.

From Wikipedia:

A statute of limitations is a statute in a common law legal system that sets forth the maximum period of time, after certain events, that legal proceedings based on those events may be initiated. In civil law systems, these provisions are usually part of the civil code or criminal code and are often known collectively as "periods of prescription" or "prescriptive periods."

in Crime Law: Prescription (F) = Statute of limitation (E)

in this case: the exact date is unknown but the period (2001-2006) is not subject to a statute of limitation at the time of proceedings.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 hrs (2006-07-23 05:38:09 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The evidence that "en tout cas depuis temps non prescrit" does NOT mean "during a period of time not specified" can be found here, where the phrase comes with specific dates:

1- André ALBERTINI
a - d'avoir, sur le territoire national et notamment en Corse du Sud et Haute-Corse, **courant 1994 et jusqu'au 27 mars 1994, en tout cas depuis temps non prescrit**, participé à un groupement formé ou à une entente établie en vue de la préparation caractérisée par un ou plusieurs faits matériels d'actes de terrorisme mentionnés à l'article 42 1-1 du Code Pénal

from

http://www.investigateur.info/news/articles/article_2004_02_...

Note: *Statute of limitations* is rounder with an "s" at the end.