Fraud and the Omissive Dispositive Act: Analysis of Cassation Ruling No. 20249 of 2025

Criminal law is constantly evolving, and rulings by the Supreme Court of Cassation often set new interpretative guidelines that profoundly influence the application of norms. A prime example is offered by the recent Ruling No. 20249 of 06/05/2025, filed on 30/05/2025, which addresses a particularly delicate aspect of the crime of fraud (Article 640 of the Italian Criminal Code): the possibility that the act of patrimonial disposition, an essential element for the crime to be constituted, may consist of a merely omissive conduct. This decision, annulling in part without referral a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal of Turin, offers fundamental food for thought for lawyers, magistrates, and, more generally, for anyone wishing to understand the nuances of protection against property crimes.

The Context of the Decision: The Case of Mr. D. R.

The judicial case that led to the Cassation ruling involved Mr. A. D. R. as the defendant, implicated in proceedings for property crimes. The Court of Appeal of Turin had issued a ruling on 01/10/2024, which was subsequently appealed. The core of the issue revolved around the interpretation of the "act of patrimonial disposition" within the context of fraud. Traditionally, there is a tendency to think of the act of disposition as a positive action (e.g., handing over money, signing a contract), but the Cassation Court, with this ruling, intended to clarify that even omissive conduct can have criminal relevance.

The Omissive Dispositive Act: A New Frontier for Fraud

The ruling under examination focuses on the nature of the act of patrimonial disposition required by Article 640 of the Italian Criminal Code. The Supreme Court, presided over by Dr. A. P. and with Dr. P. C. as rapporteur, established a principle of considerable importance, which deserves in-depth analysis. The maxim reads:

In matters of fraud, the act of patrimonial disposition required for the constitution of the crime may consist of a merely omissive conduct, provided it causes an autonomous patrimonial prejudice. (Case relating to the mere waiver, induced by deception by the defendant, to request the return of sums previously handed over to the aforementioned, not accompanied by further patrimonial damage to the victim).

This principle revolutionizes, or rather, clarifies a grey area of legal interpretation. Until now, although doctrine and jurisprudence had already explored the possibility of fraud through omission, ruling No. 20249 of 2025 defines its contours with greater precision. Mere inertia is not enough; it is necessary that the omission itself is the act by which the victim, misled by the deception of others, disposes of their own assets, suffering damage. The key element is causality: the omission must be the direct and immediate cause of the patrimonial prejudice, and this prejudice must be autonomous, i.e., not merely consequential to an action already taken. The example provided by the maxim itself is illuminating: waiving the request for the return of sums already handed over, if induced by deception, constitutes an omissive act of disposition. The victim, deceived, omits to act to recover their money, and this omission is what causes them damage.

Conditions for the Relevance of Omission

• The omission must be the direct effect of the deception by the perpetrator.
• It must be conduct capable of causing patrimonial prejudice.
• The patrimonial prejudice resulting from the omission must be autonomous, not a mere consequence of a previous act of disposition.
• The deception must have prevented the victim from taking an action that would have avoided the patrimonial damage.

Legal and Practical Implications

This interpretation extends the scope of Article 640 of the Italian Criminal Code, offering greater protection to victims of fraudulent conduct that manifests not only through positive actions but also through induced abstentions or inertia. For legal professionals, the ruling underscores the importance of carefully analyzing the causal link between the deception, the victim's error, and the act of disposition (even if omissive), as well as the consequent damage. This opens the door to new defense and prosecution strategies, requiring greater attention to reconstructing the victim's intent and their capacity for self-determination.

Previous jurisprudence, as referenced by the ruling itself (Rv. 242649-01, Rv. 283514-01, Rv. 287072-01, etc.), had already begun to outline this possibility, but the 2025 ruling crystallizes its requirements, providing clearer guidance. This is an important step in adapting legislation to modern criminal schemes, which are increasingly sophisticated and often aimed at manipulating victims' decisions through deception and disinformation.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 20249 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a fundamental reference point for understanding the crime of fraud in Italy. By recognizing that even omissive conduct can constitute an act of patrimonial disposition, provided it causes autonomous prejudice, the Supreme Court has strengthened the tools for protection against fraud, demonstrating the law's ability to adapt to the changing forms of criminality. It is essential for anyone dealing with issues related to fraud to consider this jurisprudential evolution, which requires a careful and nuanced analysis of the dynamics leading to patrimonial damage.