Usury and Statute of Limitations: The Court of Cassation Clarifies the Notion of 'Collection' (Judgment No. 26040/2025)

The crime of usury represents one of the most serious social and economic scourges, undermining human dignity and economic stability. Its complex and articulated regulation often requires judicial intervention to clarify crucial aspects, especially concerning procedural timelines. It is within this context that the recent and significant ruling of the Court of Cassation, Judgment No. 26040, filed on July 16, 2025 (Hearing of April 16, 2025), provides a fundamental interpretation of the notion of "collection" for the purpose of the commencement of the statute of limitations for the crime of usury, pursuant to Article 644-ter of the Criminal Code. This decision, which involved A. T. as the defendant and was drafted by M. C. under the presidency of A. P., is set to guide the application of the law in this area and offer greater clarity to legal professionals and citizens.

The Crime of Usury and its Complex Regulation

Usury, as provided for by Article 644 of the Criminal Code, punishes anyone who, in any form, for themselves or others, in exchange for a loan of money or other utility, demands or promises interests or other usurious advantages. The law is severe, recognizing the gravity of conduct that exploits the needy. A crucial aspect in prosecuting this crime is its statute of limitations, i.e., the period within which the State can exercise its punitive claim. Article 644-ter of the Criminal Code establishes that the statute of limitations begins to run from the moment of "collection" of usurious interest or capital. But what exactly is meant by "collection"? This is not a trivial question and has generated various interpretative trends, necessitating an authoritative clarification like the one provided by the Court of Cassation.

The Key to the Statute of Limitations: The Notion of 'Collection' According to the Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation, with judgment No. 26040/2025, has definitively ruled on this long-standing issue, providing a clear and precise interpretation of the notion of "collection" that serves as the ultimate deadline for the commencement of the statute of limitations. The maxim extracted from the judgment is of fundamental importance:

In matters of usury, collection, which constitutes, pursuant to art. 644-ter of the Criminal Code, the ultimate moment from which the statute of limitations for the crime begins to run, must be understood as referring to the payment, by the debtor, of all or part of the usurious capital or interest, or to the renewal of titles, or to the enforcement of the credit in executive proceedings, or to the recourse to executive procedures that impose a lien, even partial, on the debtor's assets. (In its reasoning, the Court clarified that collection does not coincide with the mere creation of an enforceable title, such as a civil judgment, by virtue of which one may eventually proceed in executive proceedings).

This passage from the judgment is illuminating. The Supreme Court, presided over by A. P., clarifies that "collection" is not a mere formal act, but a substantial event that concretely affects the debtor's assets. It is not enough, in fact, for an enforceable title to exist, such as a civil judgment establishing a debt, for the statute of limitations to begin to run. It is necessary for an actual movement of money or an action that encumbers, even partially, the debtor's assets to occur. The Court of Cassation lists several situations that constitute collection:

• The payment, total or partial, of usurious capital or interest by the debtor.
• The renewal of credit instruments (e.g., bills of exchange or checks).
• The enforcement of the credit in executive proceedings (e.g., through seizure and subsequent sale).
• The recourse to executive procedures that involve a lien, even partial, on the debtor's assets.

This interpretation, which aligns with previous consistent rulings such as judgment No. 11839 of 2018, prevents the statute of limitations from running too early, depriving the victim of adequate protection. If the mere creation of an enforceable title were sufficient, the crime could become time-barred even before the usurer has actually received their illicit profit or has taken concrete actions to obtain it, rendering criminal protection futile.

Practical Implications and Legal Protection

The practical consequences of this ruling are significant. For victims of usury, judgment No. 26040/2025 offers greater certainty regarding the timeframe within which it is possible to report the crime and have the perpetrator prosecuted. The starting point for the statute of limitations is moved forward, towards the actual patrimonial damage, thus ensuring a wider window of opportunity to act. For legal professionals, the decision of the panel, drafted by M. C., provides a clear and unambiguous interpretative criterion, reducing application uncertainties and strengthening the fight against usury. It is essential that anyone in a situation of economic difficulty and suspecting they are a victim of usury promptly consult legal professionals, who, in light of this and other rulings, can provide the best assistance and initiate the necessary protective procedures.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 26040/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents an important piece in the Italian jurisprudential landscape concerning usury. By clarifying the notion of "collection" and distinguishing it from the mere creation of an enforceable title, the Court has strengthened protections for victims and provided a fairer and more realistic criterion for calculating the statute of limitations. This ruling reiterates the judiciary's commitment to combating the phenomenon of usury, ensuring that justice can take its course effectively and promptly, protecting the fundamental rights of the most vulnerable citizens. For any doubts or need for assistance regarding usury situations, it is always advisable to consult a lawyer experienced in criminal law.