Mafia-type association: the Court of Cassation (Judgment no. 30176/2025) clarifies the requirements of intimidation

Jurisprudence continues to define the boundaries of the crime of mafia-type association, governed by Article 416-bis of the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court of Cassation, with Judgment no. 30176 of July 15, 2025, has provided a fundamental interpretation on proving the intimidating force of the associative bond, a crucial element for the configuration of this serious offense.

Mafia intimidation: a key requirement under scrutiny

Questions often arise about the necessary extent of mafia intimidating force: must it be pervasive and "massive" within the economic and social fabric, or is a more limited manifestation sufficient? An overly rigid interpretation could hinder the fight against criminal groups that, while operating with mafia methods, do not have widespread control. The Court of Cassation, rejecting a previous decision by the Court of Appeal of Turin, has provided a clear answer.

For the purpose of establishing the crime provided for by art. 416-bis of the Criminal Code, proof that the use of the intimidating force of the associative bond has penetrated massively into the economic and social fabric of the territory of choice is not required. Proof of the use of such intimidating force for the purposes provided for by the third paragraph of the aforementioned rule is sufficient, even in a limited territorial or sectoral scope, provided that the association has achieved criminal fame and prestige, independent and distinct from the personal ones of the individual participants, has concretely demonstrated a capacity for intimidation effectively perceived as such, and has consequently produced a submissive silence within the scope in which the association is active.

The Supreme Court, presided over by M. G. R. A. Miccoli and with E. Pilla as Rapporteur, thus reiterated that the effectiveness of intimidation does not depend on its generalized diffusion. What matters is its ability to generate subjugation and omertà, even in a more limited context. The judgment highlights that the essential elements are:

• The concrete perception of intimidating force in the relevant environment.
• The acquisition of criminal fame and prestige belonging to the association itself, distinct from individual members (such as the defendant A. P. M. Balsamo).
• The production of submissive silence, i.e., submission dictated by fear.
• The sufficiency of these effects even in a limited territorial or sectoral scope.

Practical implications of the ruling

This jurisprudential interpretation, consistent with previous trends, offers an important tool for combating mafia-type associations. It allows for the effective targeting of criminal groups that exert mafia control over specific sectors or restricted areas, without the need to demonstrate widespread penetration. This is a crucial principle for a criminal law that must adapt to the changing manifestations of crime, focusing on the substance of the mafia phenomenon.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 30176 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation clarifies that proof of mafia intimidation does not require massive diffusion. Effective perception and submissive silence are sufficient, even in limited contexts, provided that the association has its own criminal fame. This is an essential guideline for the rigorous application of Article 416-bis of the Criminal Code and for strengthening the fight against organized crime.