ATM Theft and Undue Withdrawals: Cassation with Ruling No. 30429/2025 Clarifies the Boundary withjoyriding Theft

In the landscape of criminal law, the distinction between different criminal offenses is often subtle but fundamental, with significant consequences for the accused and the victim. A striking example of this complexity is offered by the recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, Ruling No. 30429 of June 11, 2025 (filed September 8, 2025, Rv. 288596-02), which has shed light on a debated issue: the appropriation of an ATM card, its use for withdrawals, and its subsequent return to the owner. Is this joyriding theft or a more serious theft?

The Case Under Review: ATM Card, Withdrawals, and Return

The case brought to the attention of the Supreme Court concerned the conduct of an individual, D. P. M. L. P., who had taken possession of an ATM card, used it to withdraw money, and then returned it to the rightful owner. The Court of Appeal of Milan, with a ruling of November 27, 2024, had declared the appeal inadmissible, raising the issue of the correct legal classification of the act. The main question was to determine whether such conduct fell under the less serious crime of joyriding theft (Article 626, paragraph 1, no. 1, Italian Criminal Code) or the more severe crime of common theft (Article 624 Italian Criminal Code).

Theft or Joyriding Theft? The Key Distinction by Cassation

The Court of Cassation, presided over by M. G. R. A. and with F. G. as rapporteur, has definitively clarified the issue. The Supreme Court affirmed that the conduct of someone who takes possession of an ATM card, uses it for withdrawals, and then returns it, constitutes the crime of theft and not joyriding theft. The reason for this classification lies in two fundamental elements:

• The "animo domini" (intent to own): The taking of the card, aimed at making withdrawals, constitutes a genuine appropriation of the asset with the intention of disposing of it as the owner, albeit temporarily for the card, but permanently for the money.
• The diminution of economic value: The use of the card to withdraw money results in a clear and irreversible diminution of the economic value of the holder's assets. Even if the physical card is returned, the withdrawn money is lost, and this affects the economic value of the asset "money," which is the ultimate object of the crime.

To better understand this distinction, it is useful to recall the maxim of the ruling:

The conduct of one who takes possession of an ATM card and uses it to make money withdrawals, and then returns it to its owner, constitutes the crime of theft, not joyriding theft, because the taking constitutes an appropriation of the asset "animo domini," which also entails a diminution of its economic value. (In its reasoning, the Court highlighted that joyriding theft occurs when the perpetrator makes ordinary and entirely transient use of the stolen asset, without affecting its value, and then spontaneously returns it).

This passage is crucial. Joyriding theft, in fact, is characterized by "ordinary and entirely transient" use of the asset, without it being "affected in value" and with "spontaneous return." In the case of an ATM card, the use is by no means ordinary and transient for the money that is withdrawn. The intention to withdraw money, even if the card is subsequently returned, demonstrates an intention to appropriate the money "animo domini," meaning with the intention of acting as the owner, permanently depriving the rightful holder of that sum. The diminution of economic value does not concern the plastic card itself, but the balance of the current account linked to it, which is irretrievably affected.

Practical Implications and Regulatory References

The ruling by Cassation is in line with previous case law (such as rulings No. 27153 of 2025, No. 42127 of 2024, No. 42048 of 2017, and No. 6431 of 2015) that have progressively defined the boundaries between these two offenses. It reinforces the interpretation that the taking of payment instruments, if aimed at an undue withdrawal, cannot be reclassified as joyriding theft. This is because the object of desire is not the card itself, but the possibility of accessing the money, the withdrawal of which exhausts, in part or in whole, the economic function of that specific asset (the money itself).

The relevant provisions are Article 624 of the Italian Criminal Code, which punishes theft, and Article 626, paragraph 1, no. 1, which provides for joyriding theft as a mitigated circumstance. The difference lies precisely in the absence, in joyriding theft, of the intention to derive permanent profit from the asset or to permanently deprive the owner of it. In the case of ATM withdrawals, the intention to derive permanent profit from the money is evident.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 30429/2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification for legal professionals and citizens. It reiterates that the taking of an ATM card followed by undue withdrawals cannot be considered simple joyriding theft but constitutes the more serious crime of theft. This distinction is crucial for the correct application of criminal law and for ensuring effective protection of victims' assets, emphasizing how the intention to economically impoverish the owner and the consequent diminution of the asset's value are determining factors for the legal classification of the act. It is a clear warning about the seriousness of such conduct and the firm stance of jurisprudence in combating them.