Usual Theft and the Spontaneity of Return: An Analysis of Supreme Court Ruling No. 27153/2025

In the vast landscape of Italian criminal law, the distinction between different types of offenses is often subtle but crucial, with significant implications for the defendant. An emblematic example is represented by the difference between the crime of simple theft (governed by Article 624 of the Criminal Code) and the less serious crime of "usual theft" or "theft for use" (provided for by Article 626 of the Criminal Code). The Court of Cassation, with the recent Ruling No. 27153 of July 24, 2025, has offered a further and clear interpretation on a fundamental element that distinguishes the two offenses: the spontaneity of the return of the stolen item.

Usual Theft: A Peculiar Criminal Offense

Usual theft occurs when the perpetrator takes movable property belonging to another not to permanently appropriate it, but solely for the purpose of making temporary use of it, and then immediately returning it. This intention to return is the element that differentiates it from common theft, which requires the intent of profit and the intention to keep the item for oneself or for others. Article 626 of the Criminal Code, in fact, provides for a reduced penalty precisely because of this limited infringement of another's property. However, as emphasized by consistent case law and reiterated by the ruling in question, mere intention is not enough: the return must occur concretely and, above all, spontaneously.

The crime of usual theft postulates the spontaneous return of the stolen goods after their temporary use, so that all causes, even those independent of the perpetrator's will, which determine coercion or prevent the return, make the more serious crime of theft applicable.

This maxim from the Court of Cassation is at the heart of the issue. It clarifies unequivocally that the "spontaneity" of the return is not a mere detail, but an essential requirement. It means that the act of returning the item must stem from a free choice by the perpetrator, not influenced by external factors or coercion. If the return occurs only because the perpetrator is discovered, pursued, stopped, or if external events (even those not dependent on their will) prevent the return that they would have wished to make, then the offense is classified as "full" theft, with all the more severe criminal consequences.

Supreme Court Ruling No. 27153/2025 and the Principle of Spontaneous Return

The specific case that led to Ruling No. 27153/2025 involved defendant B. D., involved in proceedings for property crimes. The Court of Appeal of Turin had declared the defendant's appeal inadmissible, and the Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. G. V. and with Dr. E. C. as Rapporteur, confirmed this stance. The decision is based precisely on the lack of configuration of spontaneous return, an element that precluded the reclassification of the act from theft to usual theft.

To better understand, let's consider scenarios where the return would not be considered spontaneous:

• The thief is intercepted or pursued by the victim or law enforcement before being able to return the item.
• The stolen object is found and recovered before the perpetrator has had the opportunity to return it.
• The defendant disposes of the item out of fear of being discovered or to destroy evidence, not with the intention of returning it to the victim.
• External factors, such as a breakdown of the vehicle taken or an unforeseen obstacle, prevent the return.

In all these cases, even if the initial intention might have been for temporary use, the lack of a free and voluntary return prevents the application of the mitigated offense of usual theft, making the more serious crime of theft applicable. This principle has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the jurisprudence of legitimacy, as evidenced by the consistent maxims cited in the ruling itself (e.g., No. 9090 of 1990, Rv. 184695–01; No. 1045 of 2007, Rv. 236020-01; No. 6431 of 2015, Rv. 262664-01).

Legislative and Jurisprudential Framework

The ruling in question is part of a consolidated interpretative trend of Articles 624 and 626 of the Criminal Code. Article 624 of the Criminal Code defines theft as the conduct of anyone who "takes movable property belonging to another, with the aim of deriving profit for themselves or for others." The "profit" here is understood not only economically but can be any utility or advantage. Article 626 of the Criminal Code, on the other hand, introduces mitigated hypotheses of theft, including that of usual theft, for which it is required that "the perpetrator acted solely for the purpose of making temporary use of the item, and that it was immediately returned." It is precisely on the interpretation of "immediately returned" and its spontaneity that the Court of Cassation has placed emphasis.

The Supreme Court, with its constant work of nomophylaxis, ensures that the application of norms is uniform throughout the national territory. The clarity with which the principle of spontaneity is reiterated serves to avoid ambiguities and to guide the lower courts in the correct qualification of facts, ensuring legal certainty and a just application of penalties.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 27153 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important reminder of the rigorous interpretation of the requirements for usual theft. The spontaneity of the return is not a detail, but an essential constitutive element that can make the difference between a minor offense and a theft with much more severe criminal consequences. For those involved in similar situations, a thorough understanding of these principles is fundamental. It is always advisable to rely on experienced legal professionals who can analyze every nuance of the case and ensure the best possible defense, in light of the most recent case law.