Judgment no. 27748 of 2024: Concurrence between Receiving Stolen Goods and Possession of Counterfeit Distinctive Signs

The recent judgment no. 27748 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, has raised important questions regarding the concurrence of crimes, particularly between receiving stolen goods and the possession of counterfeit distinctive signs. This ruling offers significant food for thought for legal professionals and for those involved in similar legal matters.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

The Court has established that the crime of receiving stolen goods, governed by Article 648 of the Criminal Code, and the possession of counterfeit distinctive signs, provided for by Article 497 ter, can coexist without a relationship of specialty. This means that, according to the Court, the criminal offenses are structurally and chronologically distinct. In other words, the commission of one conduct does not exclude the other, and the judge can therefore punish both offenses.

This interpretation is fundamental to understanding the scope of illicit conduct and the related sanctions. In fact, according to case law, the concurrence of crimes is possible when the conducts are different and do not overlap, as in the case in question.

Analysis of the Legal Maxim

Concurrence with the crime of possession of counterfeit distinctive signs - Existence - Reasons. The crime of receiving stolen goods and that of possession of counterfeit distinctive signs can concur, as the criminal offenses describe different conducts from a structural and chronological perspective, between which a relationship of specialty cannot be established.

The cited legal maxim highlights that the judge has the discretion to assess the presence of multiple illicit conducts even if they are attributable to a similar context. This aspect is particularly relevant in an era where illegal trade and counterfeiting are on the rise. The possibility of simultaneously prosecuting multiple criminally relevant offenses allows for an effective fight against these phenomena.

Practical Implications and Conclusions

The practical implications of judgment no. 27748 are manifold:

• Legal clarity: The judgment offers a clear interpretation of the criminal offenses, avoiding confusion between different conducts.
• Greater protection of assets: The possibility of simultaneously prosecuting receiving stolen goods and possession of counterfeit distinctive signs allows for more effective protection of intellectual and commercial assets.
• Awareness for professionals: Legal and business professionals must be informed about the legal consequences of their actions.

In conclusion, judgment no. 27748 of 2024 represents an important step forward in understanding and applying the rules relating to the concurrence of crimes. It offers a clear and defined legal framework, useful for navigating the complex world of law and justice.