Aggravated Fraud for Public Disbursements: Commentary on Judgment No. 13573/2024

The recent judgment No. 13573 of February 2, 2024, filed on April 3, 2024, offers important insights into the topic of aggravated fraud for obtaining public disbursements. In particular, the Court ruled on the conduct of a defendant, A. R., accused of having registered false invoices relating to the simulated sale of e-books to beneficiaries of the 'bonus cultura'. This ruling, which rejects the appeal filed, deserves in-depth analysis to understand the legal and practical implications of the decision.

Context of the Judgment

A. R.'s conduct falls within the context of fraudulent use of public support instruments, in this case the 'bonus cultura', intended to encourage the purchase of books and cultural products by young people. The Court established that the defendant's conduct constitutes the crime of aggravated fraud under Article 640-bis of the Criminal Code, rather than that of undue receipt of public disbursements provided for by Article 316-ter of the same code. This aspect is fundamental, as it clearly distinguishes the two criminal offenses.

Crime of aggravated fraud for obtaining public disbursements - Simulated sale of e-books to holders of "bonus cultura" - Configurability of the crime - Reasons. The conduct of registering false invoices on the dedicated digital platform relating to the simulated sale of digital books to beneficiaries of the "bonus cultura", to whom goods of a different kind were actually delivered, constitutes the crime of aggravated fraud for obtaining public disbursements, under Article 640-bis of the Criminal Code, and not that of undue receipt of public disbursements, under Article 316-ter of the Criminal Code, given the pre-arranged fraudulent activity concretely carried out.

Distinction Between the Crimes

The judgment clarifies that for the crime of aggravated fraud to be established, it is necessary to demonstrate the existence of pre-arranged fraudulent activity. This implies that the defendant acted with the intent to deceive the public administration and unlawfully obtain an economic advantage. Conversely, the crime of undue receipt of public disbursements is based on conduct of receiving funds without complying with the stipulated conditions. In this case, the Court highlighted that the registration of false invoices for goods other than those actually delivered is a clear manifestation of fraudulent intent, thus constituting the crime of aggravated fraud.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 13573/2024 represents an important precedent in the fight against fraud against public disbursements. The distinction between aggravated fraud and undue receipt of public disbursements is crucial for the correct application of the law and for the prevention of fraudulent behavior. It is essential that legal professionals pay attention to these dynamics to ensure fair and effective justice. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, and judgments like this offer valuable insights for the future.