The Aggravating Circumstance of Teleological Nexus in Formal Competition of Crimes: Analysis of Cassation 28491/2025

In the landscape of Italian criminal law, the correct application of aggravating circumstances and the regulation of the competition of crimes are matters of fundamental importance, capable of profoundly impacting the severity of the penalty and the perception of justice. The Court of Cassation, Third Criminal Section, with judgment no. 28491, filed on August 4, 2025 (hearing of June 26, 2025), has provided essential clarification regarding the configurability of the aggravating circumstance of the teleological nexus (Art. 61, first paragraph, no. 2, Criminal Code) in the hypothesis of formal competition of crimes. This ruling, which saw Dr. M. U. as rapporteur and author, and Dr. D. N. V. as president, rejecting the appeal of the defendant D. J. S. G. W. against a decision of the Court of Appeal of Taranto, stands as a beacon for legal practitioners and all those who wish to understand the nuances of criminal justice.

The Formal Competition of Crimes and the Teleological Nexus: A Delicate Balance

Criminal law contemplates various ways in which a person can commit multiple crimes. One of these is the so-called formal competition of crimes, governed by Art. 81, first paragraph, of the Criminal Code. This provision establishes that when multiple legal provisions are violated or multiple violations of the same legal provision are committed with a single action or omission, the penalty provided for the most serious crime shall be applied, increased up to threefold. The peculiarity lies precisely in the uniqueness of the conduct that produces a plurality of criminal events.

On the other hand, the aggravating circumstance of the teleological nexus, provided for by Art. 61, first paragraph, no. 2, of the Criminal Code, is configured when the perpetrator committed the act to execute or conceal another crime, or to obtain or secure for themselves or others the product, profit, price, or impunity of another crime. This is, in essence, a specific purpose: a crime is committed not for its own sake, but as a tool for the realization of another. The central issue that has fueled jurisprudential and doctrinal debate has always been whether this aggravating circumstance could also apply in cases of formal competition, where the uniqueness of the conduct might suggest incompatibility.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation and its Innovative Significance

The judgment in question intervenes precisely on this point, resolving uncertainties and providing a clear interpretation. Here is the ruling extracted from the decision:

In matters of circumstances, the aggravating circumstance of the teleological nexus is configurable even in the case of formal competition of crimes, as it does not postulate an alterity of conduct, but the specific finalization of one crime to the realization of another. (Case in which the Court found the aggravating circumstance under Art. 61, first paragraph, no. 2, of the Criminal Code to be present, namely the crime of mistreatment in the family and that of voluntary personal injury).

This statement is groundbreaking in its clarity. The Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. D. N. V. and with Dr. M. U. as rapporteur, unequivocally establishes that the aggravating circumstance of the teleological nexus can be applied even when crimes are committed with a single action (formal competition). The focal point is not the distinction of conduct, but the purpose that links one crime to another. It is not necessary for there to be two distinct actions; it is sufficient that the perpetrator commits one crime with the specific intent to realize or facilitate another crime.

The concrete case cited in the ruling is particularly illuminating: the crime of mistreatment in the family (Art. 572 of the Criminal Code) and that of voluntary personal injury (Art. 582 of the Criminal Code). In this context, personal injuries, even if they could be the result of the same overall conduct of mistreatment, can be considered as intended to perpetuate or strengthen the climate of oppression and violence typical of mistreatment. The beatings or wounds inflicted are not isolated incidents, but pieces of a larger design of subjugation, thus serving the continuous realization of mistreatment.

• **Greater protection for victims:** This interpretation strengthens the protection of victims, particularly in sensitive contexts such as domestic violence, by allowing the full gravity of conduct to be considered.
• **Precision in the application of the law:** The judgment contributes to a more rigorous and coherent application of criminal norms, avoiding restrictive interpretations that might not capture the real offensiveness of certain conduct.
• **Clear delineation of specific intent:** The ruling emphasizes the importance of establishing specific intent, i.e., the perpetrator's intention to finalize one crime to the commission of another.

Conclusions: A Step Forward for Criminal Justice

Judgment no. 28491 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important jurisprudential evolution in matters of competition of crimes and aggravating circumstances. By reiterating that the teleological nexus does not necessarily require an alterity of conduct, but rather a specific finalization of one crime to the realization of another, the Supreme Court offers clear and pragmatic guidance. This ruling is fundamental to ensuring that the objective and subjective gravity of criminal conduct is fully recognized and sanctioned, especially in complex contexts such as mistreatment in the family, where various actions, even if converging into a single criminal event, can have distinct and aggravating purposes. For a thorough understanding of these dynamics and for legal assistance, our Firm is at your complete disposal.