Analysis of Judgment No. 25650 of 2024: Illicit Influence Peddling and Onerous Mediation

Judgment No. 25650 of March 5, 2024, by the Court of Cassation addressed a legal issue of significant importance: illicit influence peddling, as defined by Article 346-bis of the Italian Criminal Code. This decision not only clarifies the boundaries of the illegality of onerous mediation but also offers food for thought for professionals and citizens regarding responsibilities related to mediation practices in the administrative context.

Regulatory Context and Specific Case

The provision in question, Article 346-bis of the Criminal Code, defines the crime of illicit influence peddling, deeming any agreement between a mediator and a client aimed at obtaining advantages through the intervention of a public official as unlawful. In the judgment under review, the Court emphasized that mediation is considered unlawful if the agreement is intended to extend beyond the dualistic relationship, aiming to influence the actions of a public official.

• In this case, the director of the revenue agency accepted offers from a private individual to facilitate intervention on an inspection activity.
• The promise to sell real estate at a price below market value highlights the illicit nature of the mediation.
• The Court upheld the decision of the lower courts, deeming the defendant's conduct in violation of the law.

Reflections on the Legal Principle

Illicit influence peddling - Formulation of Article 346-bis of the Criminal Code prior to the amendments introduced by Law No. 3 of 2019 - Onerous mediation - Illegality of mediation - Notion - Case law. In the context of influence peddling (in the version of Article 346-bis of the Criminal Code in force before the amendments introduced by Law No. 3 of January 9, 2019), onerous mediation is unlawful if the agreement between the client and the mediator is aimed at extending beyond their dualistic relationship to obtain, by exploiting the intermediary's actual relationship with the public official, the commission of an act contrary to official duties or otherwise undue, capable of producing advantages for the client. (In the case, where the Court deemed the reasoning of the lower courts on the configurability of the crime to be correct, the director of the revenue agency had accepted from the private individual the promise to sell real estate at a price below market value in exchange for his intervention, in favor of the client, with the finance police officers who were conducting an inspection activity concerning the same individual).

This legal principle effectively summarizes the core tenet of the judgment, highlighting that onerous mediation can constitute a crime if it is aimed at obtaining an illicit advantage. The Court of Cassation thus acts as a bulwark against corrupt practices, reiterating the need to maintain a high standard of integrity in relationships between private individuals and public administration.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 25650 of 2024 represents an important step in the fight against corruption and illicit influence peddling. It not only clarifies the configurability of the crime but also serves as a warning to all professionals and citizens operating in the public sector. It is crucial that mediation practices are conducted in compliance with laws and legality, to ensure transparent and correct management of public resources and citizens' rights.