Personal favouritism and false denial of facts: focus on Cassation ruling no. 15107/2025
Can denying knowledge of facts that investigators already possess constitute personal favouritism? The Court of Cassation answers affirmatively with ruling no. 15107/2025, annulling with referral the decision of the Court of Torre Annunziata. A jurisprudential arrest that strengthens the obligations of truth towards judicial police and redefines the boundaries of art. 378 of the Italian Criminal Code.
The facts subject to the judgment
The defendant, C. C., when questioned by officers regarding a drug sale he had witnessed, declared he knew nothing about it. The officers, however, had already arrested the seller red-handed and obtained the buyer's confession. Despite this, the suspect persisted in denying his presence. The Court acquitted him, deeming the lie irrelevant because the facts were already "crystallized" in the evidence gathered. The Cassation Court, on appeal by the Public Prosecutor, overturned the decision.
The legal principle affirmed
The conduct of someone who, when questioned by the police, denies knowledge of facts known to them, even if these facts are already in the possession of the investigating authority from concurrent sources of information, constitutes the crime of personal favouritism, as the search for truth requires a plurality of elements, whose contribution cannot be left to the judgment of the individual. (In this case, the defendant had denied witnessing a drug sale, which was nevertheless confirmed by the buyer and had also occurred under the direct perception of judicial police officers who had proceeded to arrest the seller red-handed).
The Court clarifies that criminal investigations are dynamic processes based on the convergence of multiple sources of evidence. If an individual, while not obliged to speak, chooses to do so and lies, they hinder the search for truth and create a concrete investigative obstacle. The existence of other evidence does not neutralize the unlawfulness of the conduct: each piece of evidence, even if redundant, can strengthen or refute alternative reconstructions.
Constituent elements of the crime under art. 378 of the Italian Criminal Code
- Conduct: aiding a person who has committed a crime, through material assistance or, as in the case examined, through false statements aimed at hindering investigations.
- Active subject: anyone, even if unrelated to the underlying crime.
- Specific intent: the purpose of procuring impunity for third parties.
- Objective integration: the existence of an actual misdirection is not required; the potential for obstruction is sufficient.
The Panel refers to consistent precedents (Cass. nn. 6235/2000, 28426/2013, 13086/2014), highlighting a consolidated interpretative line: "false denial" is punishable when it has even an abstract effectiveness in aiding the perpetrator of the main crime.
Practical implications for operators and defence counsel
The ruling requires caution in statements made to the police: silence is a right, lying is not. This implies:
- the need for immediate legal assistance before making statements;
- renewed attention by investigators to the coherence of the information gathered;
- a greater risk of incrimination for those who attempt to "cover up" friends or relatives during investigations.
From a systematic perspective, the decision values art. 49 of the Italian Criminal Code (regarding impossible crimes) by stating that the impossibility of obstructing the investigation, if only presumed, does not exclude favouritism. This aligns with ECHR orientations that require effective and complete investigations.
Conclusions
Ruling no. 15107/2025 reaffirms the centrality of the obligation of loyalty towards the judicial authority: those who choose to speak cannot lie. The message is clear for all actors in the criminal process: collaboration, even minimal, is an integral part of the duty of solidarity provided for by art. 378 of the Italian Criminal Code, under penalty of constituting the crime of personal favouritism.
