Political-Mafia Electoral Exchange: The Court of Cassation and the Boundaries of Article 416-ter of the Criminal Code in Ruling 17870/2025

The Italian legal landscape is constantly called upon to evolve to combat the most insidious forms of organized crime, particularly those that undermine the foundations of democracy: elections. In this context, the recent Ruling No. 17870, filed on May 12, 2025, by the Supreme Court of Cassation, serves as a beacon of clarity on the delicate issue of political-mafia electoral exchange, precisely outlining the requirements for the commission of the crime provided for by Article 416-ter of the Criminal Code. This ruling, with Dr. F. Aliffi as rapporteur, rejecting an appeal against the Tribunal for the Liberty of Reggio Calabria, offers fundamental insights for understanding the scope of the legislative changes introduced in 2019 and their practical application.

The Regulatory Framework: Article 416-ter of the Criminal Code and Law 43/2019

The crime of political-mafia electoral exchange, governed by Article 416-ter of the Criminal Code, represents one of the most important tools for combating mafia infiltration into political and administrative life. This provision punishes anyone who accepts the promise to procure votes in exchange for the payment or promise of money or other benefits, with the aggravating circumstance that the pact is aimed at favoring a mafia-type association. Law No. 43 of May 21, 2019, introduced significant amendments to this article, making it more incisive and less ambiguous. The objective was to overcome interpretative difficulties that had sometimes hindered the application of the rule in the past, particularly regarding the need to prove the "mafia method." The reform sought to make it easier to prosecute conduct where the politician, even if not a mafioso himself, avails himself of the "vote package" guaranteed by the criminal organization, in exchange for favors or concessions.

Ruling 17870/2025: The Key Distinction by the Court of Cassation

The ruling by the Court of Cassation (President V. Siani) addresses precisely the central issue of the 2019 amendments, focusing on the distinction between a vote procurer who is already a member of the mafia association and one who, instead, is external to it or acts "uti singulus." The Court, with exemplary clarity, established principles that will have a lasting impact on jurisprudence in this area. The following is the summary extracted from the ruling:

For the purpose of constituting the crime of political-mafia electoral exchange, in the text subsequent to the amendments introduced by Law No. 43 of May 21, 2019, if the person who undertakes to recruit votes is a member of the mafia association, it is not necessary to prove that the procurement occurs by mafia method, whereas, when they are external to it or in any case operate "uti singulus," proof is required that the agreement contemplates procurement activity carried out with the methods referred to in Article 416-bis, paragraph three, of the Criminal Code.

This summary is of fundamental importance. It distinguishes two precise scenarios:

• Procure who is a member of the mafia association: If the person undertaking to collect votes is already a member of a mafia association, the ruling establishes that it is not necessary to prove that their "procurement" occurs using the "mafia method" (i.e., intimidation, subjugation, and omertà typical of criminal organizations, as described in Article 416-bis, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code). The reason is clear: mere membership in a mafia-type association already implies the capacity to exert intimidating force and to exploit the conditions of subjugation and omertà that derive from it. The actions of an affiliate are intrinsically characterized by the "mafiosity" of the group.
• Procure who is external to the association or acts "uti singulus": Conversely, if the person undertaking to procure votes is not part of the mafia association or acts as an individual, then proof of the "mafia method" becomes indispensable. In this case, the prosecution must demonstrate that the agreement with the politician provided for vote procurement activity carried out with the intimidating or subjugating methods referred to in Article 416-bis, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code. A simple illicit agreement is not enough; specific proof of the use of mafia-typical intimidation is required.

This interpretation strengthens the scope of the provision, facilitating the ascertainment of the crime when the interlocutor is a mafioso, without indiscriminately extending responsibility to those who have no direct ties to organized crime, for whom the need to prove the mafia method remains firm.

Conclusions: A Step Forward for Legality

Ruling 17870/2025 by the Court of Cassation, in the case involving D. A. and others, represents a crucial piece in the fight against organized crime and the protection of electoral transparency. It offers clear and binding guidance for judges and legal professionals, precisely distinguishing the different hypotheses of involvement in the crime of political-mafia electoral exchange. This ruling underscores the constant commitment of jurisprudence to protect the integrity of the democratic process from any form of illicit conditioning, reaffirming that the freedom of vote is an indispensable pillar of our Republic and that any attempt to pollute it will be pursued with the utmost firmness.