Judgment No. 16955 of 2024: The Crime of Theft and Embezzlement in Public Service

The recent judgment No. 16955 of March 28, 2024, by the Court of Cassation provides an important clarification regarding the distinction between the crime of theft and embezzlement. This ruling became necessary following a specific case where a public official, a carabinieri officer, had taken possession of an arrested person's mobile phone before the item was officially seized. The Court thus reiterated that the conduct of a public official in this context constitutes the crime of theft, rather than embezzlement.

The Difference Between Theft and Embezzlement

The judgment clarifies a crucial aspect of Italian criminal law: theft, pursuant to Article 624 of the Criminal Code, is a crime committed when an individual takes possession of another's property without the owner's consent. Conversely, embezzlement, governed by Article 314 of the Criminal Code, occurs when a public official appropriates property that they have control over by virtue of their office.

In the case at hand, the carabinieri officer's conduct constituted theft because there had been no prior possession of the item for official reasons. This clearly distinguishes his action from that of a public official who, for example, appropriates goods received in custody in the performance of their duties.

Difference with the crime of embezzlement - Manner of acquiring the property - Relevance - Factual situation. The conduct of a public official or a person entrusted with public service who, in the course of performing official duties, takes possession of another's money or movable property 'invito domino' and without having previously obtained possession thereof for reasons of office or service, constitutes the crime of theft, not embezzlement. (Factual situation relating to the subtraction, by a carabinieri officer, of the arrested person's mobile phone before the item was seized or otherwise taken into custody for official reasons).

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for both legal practice and the functioning of public institutions. Firstly, it reaffirms the necessity of a strict distinction between unlawful conduct for the purpose of criminal liability of public officials. This is fundamental to ensuring citizens' trust in institutions and maintaining high ethical standards among those working in public service.

• Reaffirmation of the distinction between theft and embezzlement.
• Clarity on the responsibility of public officials.
• Implications for training and ethical conduct within law enforcement agencies.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 16955 of 2024 represents a significant step in Italian jurisprudence concerning property crimes, particularly regarding the conduct of public officials. It underscores the importance of always operating in compliance with the law and not confusing responsibilities related to public service with illicit behavior. The distinction between theft and embezzlement is not merely a legal matter but a fundamental principle of ethics and integrity that must guide the actions of every public official.