Judgment No. 36940 of 2024: Exclusion of Statements in Electricity Theft

Judgment No. 36940 of September 18, 2024, filed on October 4, 2024, represents an important milestone in the Italian legal landscape concerning electricity theft. The Court of Cassation has addressed the delicate issue of the admissibility of statements made to Enel inspectors, clarifying fundamental aspects involving the nature of inspection activities and the defendants' right to defense.

Context of the Judgment

The case involved the defendant G. M., accused of electricity theft. During checks conducted by Enel personnel, statements were made by M. which, according to the prosecution, could have proven the existence of the crime. However, the Court had to assess the validity of these statements in the context of criminal proceedings.

Legal Principles Affirmed

Electricity theft - Enel inspector's verification activities - Administrative inspection nature - Existence - Statements made to the inspector by a subject against whom data indicative of the existence of a crime have emerged - Ordinary trial - Admissibility - Exclusion - Verification report - Admissibility - Conditions. In matters of electricity theft, statements made to the Enel inspector by a subject against whom even simple data indicative of an act appreciable as a crime have emerged are inadmissible in ordinary proceedings, as the verification activity has an administrative inspection nature pursuant to art. 220 of the implementing provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the prohibition of testimony on statements by the suspect or defendant also applies to those made during inspection activities by a person subsequently investigated. (In its reasoning, the Court also affirmed that the report drawn up by the inspector is, however, admissible for the purpose of proving the verification, the methods of electricity diversion, the description of the state of the premises, and the diversion itself).

This summary provides an important key to understanding the inspectors' work and their role in the proceedings. Essentially, statements made during verification activities cannot be used as evidence in criminal proceedings, as these activities are of an investigative and not accusatory nature.

Implications for Criminal Law

The judgment highlights the delicate balance between the right to defense and the prerogatives of control bodies. It is crucial that evidence used in criminal proceedings is collected in compliance with the defendant's rights, preventing potentially coercive statements from influencing the final judgment.

• Statements made to Enel inspectors cannot be used in ordinary proceedings.
• The inspector's report is admissible to prove the verification and the methods of electricity diversion.
• The investigative nature of the verification activity excludes the possibility of using the defendant's statements as evidence.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 36940 of 2024 represents a step forward in protecting defendants' rights and defining the boundaries between investigative activity and evidentiary activity in criminal law. It is essential for legal professionals to take note of these indications to ensure a fair and equitable trial, in compliance with current regulations and the principles of legality.