Criminal Cassation, judgment no. 9407/2025: when impersonation is absorbed into other crimes against public faith

The Fifth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 9407 of February 5, 2025 (filed March 6, 2025), redefines the boundaries of art. 494 of the Italian Criminal Code – impersonation – in light of the reservation clause contained in the same provision. The case concerned M. D., accused of using false personal details along with other artifices harmful to public faith. The lower court had deemed the crime under art. 494 absorbed into a different type of forgery, but the Supreme Court overturned the decision, providing useful clarifications.

The reservation clause and art. 15 of the Italian Criminal Code

Art. 494 of the Italian Criminal Code provides that impersonation "outside the cases indicated in art. 495" is punishable by imprisonment for up to one year. The so-called reservation clause requires verification of whether the same act is integrated into another more serious crime against public faith: in such a case, art. 494 is absorbed, according to the scheme of art. 15 of the Italian Criminal Code (specialty). The judgment under review recalls, however, that absorption only applies when it concerns a single historical act, not multiple autonomous actions.

The crime of impersonation, by virtue of the reservation clause contained in the criminal provision, is absorbed into another criminal figure only when one is faced with a single act, simultaneously attributable both to the provision of art. 494 of the Criminal Code and to that of another provision protecting public faith; conversely, there is a material concurrence of crimes when one is faced with a plurality of acts and therefore of different and separate actions.

Comment: The Court strongly recalls the principle of specialty under art. 15 of the Italian Criminal Code, but limits its application to cases where the conduct is singular and undifferentiated. If, for example, a person falsifies a document (art. 482 of the Italian Criminal Code) and, at a separate time, uses another's identity to gain profit, there will be two crimes in material concurrence: one for the documentary forgery and one for impersonation.

One act or multiple acts? Operational criteria

The decision offers practical criteria for distinguishing between the unity and plurality of conduct. It considers:

• Temporal contiguity: does the action take place at a single moment?
• Unitary purpose: does the perpetrator pursue a single goal with a single means?
• Nature of the offense: is the same legal interest affected in an indivisible way?

In the presence of these indicators, absorption is justified. If, on the other hand, the actions are successive or occur at different times – such as sending emails under another's name and, separately, producing false documents – there will be material concurrence under art. 81 of the Italian Criminal Code.

Applicative implications for defense and prosecution

For the defense, highlighting the simultaneity and unity of behavior can reduce the charge to a single crime, limiting the penalty. For the prosecution, conversely, segmenting the facts allows for multiple charges to be brought, increasing the sanctioning framework. Judgment no. 9407/2025 aligns with previous similar rulings (Cass. 6597/2014; 13328/2015) and provides a solid interpretive toolkit also for judicial police officers during the investigation phase.

Conclusions

The Court of Cassation reiterates that impersonation is an autonomous crime but is absorbable when the conduct fully coincides with another falsity. If, however, the perpetrator carries out multiple distinct actions, the regime of material concurrence applies, with significant repercussions on the penalty and the statute of limitations. Correct qualification of the facts, already at the investigation stage, therefore becomes crucial to avoid unfounded charges or, conversely, to avoid leaving plurioffensive conduct unpunished.