Scam: When the Deceived is Not the Damaged Party. Analysis of Supreme Court Ruling No. 30125/2025

Italian criminal law, with its continuous jurisprudential evolutions, offers crucial insights for understanding the scope and limits of criminal offenses. A recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, Ruling No. 30125, filed on September 2, 2025, reiterated a fundamental principle regarding fraud (Article 640 of the Italian Criminal Code): the identity between the person induced into error and the one suffering financial damage is not required. This highly relevant decision clarifies an often-debated aspect, consolidating the trend aimed at ensuring broader asset protection against fraudulent conduct.

The Causal Link in Fraud: A Consolidated Principle

The crime of fraud occurs when deceptive conduct (artifices or misrepresentations) induces someone into error, leading them to perform an act of financial disposition that causes unjust damage to themselves or others, and procures an unjust profit for the perpetrator. The Supreme Court, presided over by Dr. E. A. and with Dr. A. C. as rapporteur, provided a decisive interpretation on a specific point:

For the crime of fraud to be established, the identity between the person induced into error and the one who suffered financial damage is not necessary, provided that, even in the absence of direct contact between the perpetrator of the artifices and misrepresentations and the damaged party, there is a causal link between the inducement into error, the profit, and the damage. (Case where the Court held that the crime was correctly established with reference to the conduct of the holder of a maritime state concession for having submitted falsified F23 forms to the Municipality, responsible for collecting the relevant fees, in order to appear compliant, even though the Treasury was the ultimate recipient of the sums due).

This maxim highlights how the core of fraud lies in the causal link between deception, the dispositional act, and the damage. Direct contact between the scammer and the final victim is not indispensable. The deceived party can be an intermediary who, due to the induced error, performs an act that damages a third party's assets. What matters is the causal sequence: artifices/misrepresentations -> inducement into error -> dispositional act -> damage to others -> unjust profit.

The Practical Case: Falsified F23 Forms and Damage to the Treasury

The ruling in question stems from a concrete case that perfectly clarifies the principle. The defendant, Mr. S. R., holder of a maritime state concession, had submitted falsified F23 forms to the Municipality – the entity responsible for collection – to simulate the payment of due fees. In reality, the Treasury (the State) was the true recipient of the sums, and the non-collection represented damage to public funds.

In Mr. S. R.'s case, the Municipality was the party "induced into error" by the artifices (the counterfeit F23 forms). The financial damage, however, was suffered by the Treasury. The Court of Cassation deemed the classification of the crime of fraud to be correct, recognizing all the constituent elements, albeit with a dissociation between the deceived party and the damaged party:

• Artifices and misrepresentations: the production of false F23 forms.
• Inducement into error: the Municipality was misled about the regularity of payments.
• Act of financial disposition: the Municipality's failure to collect the fees, with effects on the Treasury.
• Unjust damage: the financial harm suffered by the Treasury.
• Unjust profit: S. R.'s economic advantage from not having paid.

This interpretation is in line with consistent precedents from the Court of Cassation (e.g., Rulings No. 43143/2013 and No. 8653/2023), reinforcing the idea that fraud can occur even in complex contexts, where the perpetrator uses a third party to achieve their harmful objective.

Conclusions: A Warning for Fraud Prevention

Ruling No. 30125/2025 by the Court of Cassation serves as a clear warning to anyone intending to engage in fraudulent conduct. It emphasizes that criminal justice is capable of recognizing and sanctioning fraud even when the schemes adopted are more sophisticated and do not involve direct contact between the offender and the damaged party. The cardinal principle of the causal link remains the guiding light for the application of Article 640 of the Italian Criminal Code.

For victims of fraud, this ruling offers important reassurance: legal protection is not limited to situations of direct deception. For companies and public entities, it is a reminder of the need to implement robust control systems and to seek expert legal advice to promptly identify and counter any attempted fraud. The complexity of criminal law always requires a professional and up-to-date approach, capable of grasping the nuances of jurisprudential decisions for effective defense of one's rights.