Contractual Fraud and IBAN Card Transfers: The Supreme Court (Judgment No. 25992/2025) Clarifies Time and Place of Completion

In the landscape of online property crimes, contractual fraud presents significant challenges in determining the moment and place of its completion. The Supreme Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 25992 of 01/07/2025 (filed on 15/07/2025), has provided a crucial interpretation for payments made via bank transfer to a prepaid card with an IBAN. This ruling offers greater legal certainty and has important practical implications for victims and criminal law.

Contractual Fraud in the Digital Age: The Judgment's Details

Contractual fraud, under art. 640 of the Italian Criminal Code (c.p.), occurs through artifices or deceptions that induce a person into error, causing unjust profit at the expense of others. The case examined concerned fraud involving payment via bank transfer to a prepaid card with an IBAN. The question was whether the crime was completed upon the victim's order to pay or upon the fraudster's actual possession of the funds.

The Court of Appeal of Bologna (decision of 28/11/2024) had annulled and remanded the case. The Court of Cassation, with President and Rapporteur A. P., and Judge M. D. B., equated an IBAN card transfer to an ordinary bank account transaction, where the payment order and the credit are not simultaneous. This distinction is fundamental for determining the moment of completion.

Contractual fraud carried out through payment by bank transfer to a card with an IBAN linked to a current account held at a territorial bank, as an operation comparable to a bank transfer where the payment order is not simultaneous with the credit, is completed at the time and place where the perpetrator obtains unjust profit through the collection of the sum, and not at the time when the order for payment is given by the victim.

This maxim clarifies that the fraud is completed not with the victim's act of financial disposition (e.g., sending the bank transfer), but when the fraudster obtains the unjust profit, i.e., when they can concretely dispose of the sum. The crime is consummated at the time and place where the perpetrator, such as F. B., collects or uses the money. This interpretation is consistent with previous case law (No. 36359/2016 and No. 23781/2020), which links completion to the victim's actual financial prejudice and the perpetrator's unjust profit.

Legal Implications and Regulatory References

The clarification by the Supreme Court has significant practical implications. Determining the time and place of the crime's completion is crucial for territorial jurisdiction and for calculating the statute of limitations. If the crime is completed at the place where the profit is collected, this location may be outside the victim's domicile or the place where the payment was ordered.

Regulatory references include articles 8 and 9 of the Italian Criminal Code (c.p.) (territoriality of criminal law) and article 640 of the Italian Criminal Code (c.p.) (fraud). The judgment reiterates the essential elements of fraud:

• Artifices or deceptions;
• Induction of the victim into error;
• Act of financial disposition;
• Unjust profit and corresponding damage to the victim.

Equating an IBAN prepaid card transfer to a traditional bank transfer, overcoming the idea that the mere payment order is sufficient, strengthens victim protection.

Conclusions: Legal Certainty in Online Fraud

Judgment No. 25992 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is a fundamental reference point for case law on digital contractual fraud. Clarifying the moment and place of completion is essential for the correct application of the law, the effectiveness of investigations, and the protection of victims. This ruling provides greater legal certainty, allowing legal professionals and citizens to better understand the mechanisms and consequences of online fraud. It is imperative that criminal law adapts to new forms of crime, offering clear and precise responses.