Illicit Influence Peddling: Cassation Ruling No. 17475/2025 and the Limits of Onerous Mediation

The landscape of criminal law is constantly evolving, and the rulings of the Supreme Court of Cassation serve as a beacon for the interpretation and application of norms. In this context, the recent ruling No. 17475, filed on May 8, 2025 (hearing of February 4, 2025), proves to be of particular interest, offering fundamental clarifications regarding the crime of illicit influence peddling, governed by Article 346-bis of the Criminal Code. The decision, presided over by E. A. and reported by F. D., partially annulled without referral a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Palermo dated January 16, 2024, delineating more precise boundaries for criminally relevant conduct and strengthening the principle of legality.

The Regulatory Framework: Article 346-bis c.p. and its Amendments

The crime of illicit influence peddling was introduced into our legal system with the aim of combating conduct that, while not constituting corruption or extortion, undermines the impartiality and proper functioning of Public Administration. Article 346-bis c.p., however, has undergone several amendments over time, the most recent being introduced by Law No. 114 of 2024. These reforms have sought to refine the offense, making it more responsive to protection needs but also more precise in its application, avoiding expansive interpretations that could lead to excessive criminalization of conduct that is not strictly harmful.

The complexity of the norm lies precisely in distinguishing between legitimate lobbying or mediation activities, which fall within the freedom of economic initiative and democratic participation, and illicit conduct aimed at commodifying relationships and influences. The Court of Cassation, with the ruling in question, has provided a restrictive and protective interpretation, establishing an important safeguard.

Onerous mediation aimed at carrying out acts that do not constitute a crime does not fall within the scope of the offense of illicit influence peddling, provided for by Article 346-bis of the Criminal Code as amended by Article 1, paragraph 1, letter e), of Law August 9, 2024, No. 114. (In application of this principle, the Court affirmed that onerous mediation aimed at the commission of abrogated instances of abuse of office is no longer punishable under Article 2, second paragraph, of the Criminal Code).

This maxim is the heart of the ruling and deserves careful analysis. The Court of Cassation, in fact, has clarified unequivocally that for the crime of illicit influence peddling to be constituted, the act subject to mediation (whether onerous or not) must have an illicit connotation, meaning it must itself be a crime. If the act for which mediation is sought does not constitute a criminal offense, then the mediation conduct, however onerous, cannot fall within the scope of Article 346-bis c.p. This principle was specifically applied to the case where mediation was aimed at the commission of instances of abuse of office which, following legislative amendments, are no longer considered crimes. In such circumstances, the Court of Cassation reiterated the applicability of the principle of retroactivity of the more favorable criminal law (Article 2, paragraph 2, c.p.), which excludes punishability for acts that, although crimes at the time of their commission, are no longer so at the time of the decision.

The Cassation Ruling: A Crucial Limit for Punishability

In the specific case that led to ruling No. 17475/2025, the defendant P. G. was involved in a case of onerous mediation. The Court of Appeal of Palermo had deemed the crime to be constituted, but the Supreme Court quashed that decision. The crux of the matter lay in the nature of the acts subject to mediation: these were conduct that, at the time of the second-instance ruling, no longer constituted the crime of abuse of office due to legislative amendments. The Court of Cassation, with a rigorous interpretation, established that mere onerous mediation, even if aimed at obtaining an advantage through influence, is not in itself sufficient to constitute illicit influence peddling if the act "obtained" or "promised" is not, in turn, a criminal offense. This reinforces the idea that the crime in question does not punish the mediation activity itself, but the commodification of influences that translate into illicit acts.

The key points of this important ruling can be summarized as follows:

• Necessity of a crime-act: Mediation must concern an act that, in itself, constitutes a crime.
• Principle of legality: The strict application of Article 2, paragraph 2, c.p. requires that if an act is no longer provided for by law as a crime, it cannot be punished.
• Limits to expansive interpretation: The ruling curbs excessively broad interpretations of influence peddling, safeguarding the principle of determinacy of the criminal offense.
• Protection of freedom of mediation: While not justifying opaque conduct, the ruling distinguishes between lawful and unlawful mediation, based on the nature of the final act.

This approach is in line with constitutional and supranational principles that require a strict interpretation of criminal laws, avoiding analogies and ensuring the predictability of the legal consequences of one's actions. The ruling fits into a line of jurisprudence that aims to define more clearly the boundaries between the area of lawfulness and that of criminal unlawfulness, especially in a sensitive sector such as crimes against Public Administration.

Conclusions: An Important Step for Legal Certainty

Ruling No. 17475/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents a fundamental reference point for the interpretation of Article 346-bis c.p. on illicit influence peddling. By reiterating the importance that the act subject to mediation constitutes a crime and by rigorously applying the principle of retroactivity of the more favorable law, the Supreme Court has provided a protective interpretation that safeguards legal certainty and prevents expansive applications of criminal law. For legal professionals and citizens alike, this ruling underscores the importance of a thorough knowledge of continuous legislative and jurisprudential developments, especially in such sensitive matters. Our Law Firm is available for further discussion and consultation on these complex issues, ensuring qualified and up-to-date assistance.