Electricity theft: statements to the Enel inspector and Judgment No. 36940 of 2024
Court of Cassation Judgment No. 36940, decided on September 18 and filed on October 4, 2024, distinguishes statements made to an Enel inspector from the report documenting the inspection.
When statements are inadmissible
In ordinary proceedings, statements are inadmissible where even simple indications of a criminal offense have emerged against the person making them. The verification is an administrative inspection under Article 220 of the implementing provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prohibition on testimony concerning statements by a suspect or defendant also applies to statements made during an inspection by a person subsequently investigated.
The report is a separate issue
The headnote states that the report may establish that the inspection occurred, how electricity was diverted, the condition of the premises and the diversion itself. The ruling therefore does not exclude everything gathered by the inspector: statements must be distinguished from documented facts, under the stated conditions governing ordinary proceedings.
