Abusive Practice of Real Estate Brokerage: The Important Ruling of the Court of Cassation n. 23196/2025

Compliance with professional regulations is fundamental for market transparency and integrity. The abusive practice of a profession is not merely an administrative irregularity but can constitute a criminal offense. The Court of Cassation, with Ruling n. 23196 filed on June 20, 2025, has provided crucial clarification on the boundary between administrative and criminal offenses for real estate brokers, emphasizing the seriousness of the conduct of those who, having already been sanctioned, persist in their activity without due registration. This serves as a significant warning to operators and for consumer protection.

The Regulatory Framework for Real Estate Brokerage Activities

Article 348 of the Italian Criminal Code penalizes the abusive practice of professions requiring special authorization. For real estate brokers, Law n. 39 of 1989 and Legislative Decree n. 59 of 2010 mandate registration in the business register at the Chamber of Commerce as an essential requirement. Article 8, paragraph 1, of Law n. 39/1989 provides for an administrative sanction for failure to register. But when does this administrative violation transform into a crime?

The Specific Case and the Court of Cassation's Decision

The procedural case analyzed by Ruling n. 23196/2025 concerned Mr. C. B., accused of the abusive practice of brokerage. C. B. had already been administratively sanctioned for the same illicit activity. Despite this, he had carried out a single additional brokerage act without proper registration. The Court of Appeal of Brescia had already recognized his criminal liability. The Court of Cassation, presided over by R. C. and with T. M. as rapporteur, confirmed this approach, rejecting the appeal and establishing a clear principle.

The crime of abusive practice of the real estate brokerage profession is constituted by the conduct of someone who, without being registered in the Chamber of Commerce register referred to in Article 73, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree n. 59 of 2010, and having already been subject to an administrative sanction pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 1, of Law n. 39 of February 3, 1989, carries out even a single typical brokerage act.

This maxim is extremely clear. The Supreme Court reiterates that the crime of abusive practice of a profession (Article 348 of the Criminal Code) occurs when, in addition to the lack of registration, there is a prior administrative sanction for the same conduct. The crucial point is that even a "single typical brokerage act" is sufficient to trigger criminal relevance. Therefore, a plurality of acts is not necessary if the perpetrator has already demonstrated a prior administrative violation. This highlights the intention to combat with greater severity those who, despite having been warned, persist in illegality.

Practical Implications and Protection

The ruling consolidates a line of case law that distinguishes administrative offenses from criminal offenses, while acknowledging their connection. The administrative offense (Article 8, paragraph 1, Law 39/1989) punishes mere failure to register. The crime (Article 348 of the Criminal Code) requires a quid pluris, represented here by the prior administrative sanction and the repetition of the conduct, even with a single act. This mechanism aims to:

• Strengthen the protection of public trust: Ensure that professions are practiced only by qualified individuals.
• Prevent recurrence: Those who have already been sanctioned and do not comply demonstrate a greater propensity for illegality.
• Protect consumers: Ensure that users engage with legitimate and responsible professionals.

The Court of Cassation's ruling is a clear signal: abusive practice is not to be underestimated. The distinction between administrative and criminal offenses hinges on the persistence of the conduct and the prior "warning" received.

Conclusions

Ruling n. 23196/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents a firm stance in the fight against professional abuse in the real estate brokerage sector. It reiterates that legality is an indispensable value and that the legal system intervenes with criminal tools when administrative sanctions are insufficient. For professionals, it is a reminder of the importance of regularity. For citizens, it is a guarantee that they can rely on qualified and legally recognized intermediaries, protecting their interests in operations of great importance such as real estate transactions. Case law continues to reinforce the principles of legality and transparency.