Judgment No. 2425 of 2024: The Configurability of Complicity in the Crime of Usury

Judgment No. 2425 of October 31, 2024, filed on January 21, 2025, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important ruling on usury and complicity in the crime. In particular, the case concerns the liability of a person who, aware of the usurious conditions, puts the usurer in contact with the borrower. This article aims to analyze the main aspects of the judgment and its legal implications.

Complicity in the Crime of Usury

The Court has established that, pursuant to Article 110 of the Criminal Code, anyone who, being aware of the conditions under which the agreement is to be concluded, puts the usurer in contact with the borrower is liable for complicity in the crime of usury. This applies even at the request of the borrower, who expresses their need for a loan.

Usury - Person who puts usurer and borrower in contact - Complicity in the crime - Configurability - Conditions. Anyone who, being aware of the conditions under which the agreement is to be concluded, puts the usurer in contact with the borrower is liable for complicity in the crime of usury, even at the request of the latter, who has expressed their need for a loan.

Necessary Conditions for Complicity

The judgment specifies that for complicity in the crime of usury to be established, certain fundamental conditions must be met:

• Awareness of usurious conditions: the person must be aware of the terms and conditions of the loan.
• Contact between usurer and borrower: direct intermediation must occur, where the person facilitates the meeting between the two parties.
• Borrower's request: the borrower must have explicitly expressed their need for a loan, thus justifying the contact.

These conditions highlight that mere knowledge of usurious practices is not sufficient; active intermediation is necessary.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 2425 of 2024 represents an important reference for case law on usury. The Court of Cassation has clarified that complicity in the crime of usury cannot be established in the absence of awareness and an action of contact between the parties. This aspect is crucial for distinguishing the responsibilities of intermediaries and for ensuring the correct application of usury legislation. The ruling, therefore, offers significant insights for all legal professionals and for those who have to deal with situations of this type.