Commentary on Judgment No. 17029 of 2022: Usury and Joint Liability

Judgment No. 17029 of 2022 by the Court of Cassation represents an important reflection on the crime of usury and joint liability, highlighting the responsibilities of those who, while not the principal perpetrator of the crime, subsequently intervene to recover a usurious debt. In particular, it emphasizes how a debt collector can be held liable for usury, even if their intervention occurs after the usurious agreement has been finalized.

Joint Liability in the Crime of Usury

The maxim of the judgment states:

Joint liability in the crime - Intervention of the debt collector - Configurability - Reasons. Those who, at a later stage after the usurious agreement has been finalized, having been tasked with recovering the debt, obtain its payment, are liable for the crime of usury in joint liability, as it pertains to a crime with a fragmented conduct or prolonged consummation.

This statement clarifies that criminal liability is not limited solely to the individuals who entered into the usurious agreement but also extends to those who, in a subsequent role, contribute to the recovery of an already usurious debt. This implies an expansion of the concept of culpability in the sphere of usury, leading to the debt collector's intervention being considered an integral part of the crime.

Legal and Regulatory Implications

The judgment refers to Article 110 of the Penal Code, which deals with joint liability in crimes, and Article 644, which governs usury. These articles lay the groundwork for a broader understanding of criminal liability, especially in contexts where the crime is complex and involves multiple actors.

• Recognition of liability for those who recover usurious debts.
• Possibility of considering the crime of usury as a fragmented conduct.
• Reflection on the consequences for debt collectors and credit recovery agencies.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 17029 of 2022 offers significant insights into the understanding of the crime of usury and the responsibilities associated with joint liability. The intervention of a debt collector, far from being a neutral act, can entail serious legal consequences. It is therefore crucial that those operating in the credit recovery sector are aware of the criminal implications of their actions, to avoid incurring offenses that, however indirectly, can compromise their legal and professional standing.