The Incomplete Attempted Extortion: Analysis of Cassation Ruling No. 18578/2025

Criminal law is a constantly evolving field, and the rulings of the Supreme Court of Cassation serve as a beacon for the interpretation and application of norms. Ruling No. 18578, filed on May 16, 2025, has provided fundamental clarification regarding the delicate boundary of attempted extortion, focusing on the peculiar figure of the "incomplete attempt." This decision, presided over by Dr. L. Agostinacchio and reported by Dr. G. Nicastro, analyzes the case of P. M. T. versus S. M., offering valuable insights for legal professionals and citizens.

The Crime of Extortion and Its Attempted Form

Extortion, governed by Article 629 of the Criminal Code, is a property offense that occurs when, through violence or threat, someone is forced to do or omit something, thereby obtaining an unjust profit for oneself or others to the detriment of others. However, the legal system does not wait for the crime to be completed to intervene. Article 56 of the Criminal Code, in fact, punishes the "attempt," which occurs when the subject commits acts that are suitable and unequivocally directed towards committing a crime, but the action is not completed or the event does not occur. Traditionally, a distinction is made between a "completed attempt" (the perpetrator exhausts the action but the event does not happen) and an "incomplete attempt" (the action itself is not brought to completion due to causes independent of the perpetrator's will).

Ruling 18578/2025: Clarity on the "Incomplete" Attempt

The Cassation ruling No. 18578/2025 focuses precisely on this second type of attempt, particularly in the context of extortion. In the specific case, the defendant S. M. was accused of conduct consisting of a mere threat directed at the victim. What made the case peculiar was the absence of a subsequent and explicit demand for money, the lack of which was due to external events independent of the perpetrator's will. The Court of Appeal had annulled with referral the previous decision of the Brescia Freedom Court, precisely to redefine the contours of this offense. The Cassation, with its ruling, has established a fundamental principle clarifying that even in the absence of the complete manifestation of the typical conduct of the crime (the demand for money), the attempt can still be configured if the action, although partial, was suitable and unequivocally directed to produce the event.

The so-called "incomplete" attempt is configurable in relation to the crime of extortion, which occurs when the perpetrator has only partially carried out, without completing it, the action aimed at producing the event. (In application of the principle, the Court affirmed that the conduct of the suspect consisting of a mere threat directed at the victim, to which the demand for money confirming its instrumentality to the forced completion of the patrimonial disposition act did not follow, due to the occurrence of events independent of his will, constitutes the so-called "incomplete" attempt at extortion).

This maxim from the Court of Cassation highlights a crucial aspect: for the configuration of an "incomplete" attempt at extortion, it is not necessary for the perpetrator to have completed every single step of the typical conduct. It is sufficient that they have undertaken acts that, although not brought to completion due to external factors, unequivocally reveal their extortionate intent and are objectively suitable to achieve the illicit objective. In the analyzed case, the "mere threat" was considered a suitable and unequivocal act, whose coercive effect was aimed at obtaining a profit, even if the subsequent phase (the explicit demand for money) was interrupted by circumstances not dependent on the aggressor's will.

Legal Implications and Protection

The ruling reinforces the importance of Article 56 of the Criminal Code, ensuring that justice can intervene even in the preliminary stages of a crime, provided there is clear criminal intent and concrete acts directed towards its realization. The assessment of the suitability and unequivocal nature of the acts is always an ex ante judgment. This interpretation ensures greater protection for victims and more effective repression of property crimes, preventing seriously threatening conduct from remaining unpunished simply because the perpetrator failed to complete the criminal process due to external causes. It serves as a warning to anyone intending to undertake coercive actions to obtain illicit advantages, highlighting that even the first steps towards extortion can have significant criminal consequences.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 18578/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents a firm point in the interpretation of attempted extortion, particularly in its "incomplete" form. It reiterates that the legal system does not wait for the crime to be completed to intervene but punishes the implementation of suitable and unequivocal conduct aimed at committing a crime. This principle is fundamental for the prevention and repression of crimes, ensuring that criminal intent, once translated into concrete and dangerous actions, finds a firm and timely response from justice. For anyone facing similar situations, whether as a victim or as a suspect, it is crucial to seek expert legal advice to navigate the complexity of these offenses.