Mafia victims' fund and multiple convictions: the principle of unity of performance in Order no. 29890/2025

The protection of victims of mafia-type crimes represents one of the priorities of our legal system, which over time has established social solidarity instruments to ensure economic relief even when the perpetrators are unable to provide compensation. Among these instruments, the Revolving Fund, governed by Law no. 512 of 1999, stands out. However, the practical application of these protections raises complex legal questions, particularly when different convictions are reached in separate criminal proceedings for the same criminal act. The Court of Cassation ruled on this specific issue with Order no. 29890 of November 12, 2025, establishing a principle of fundamental importance for the balance of the public indemnity system.

The case and solidarity in damages compensation

The matter originates from the appeal filed by the State Attorney General's Office against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Palermo, which had recognized the right of S. C. to obtain multiple indemnities from the Revolving Fund. The central issue concerned the possibility for the victim of an associative crime to cumulate indemnity payments if there had been multiple compensation judgments issued in separate criminal proceedings against different co-perpetrators of the same crime.

In Italian civil law, Art. 2055 of the Civil Code establishes the principle of joint and several liability: if the harmful act is attributable to several persons, all are jointly and severally liable for the compensation of damages. In parallel, Art. 187, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code provides that co-perpetrators of a crime are jointly and severally liable for civil obligations. The Supreme Court, presided over by L. Rubino and with reporting judge S. G. Guizzi, had to clarify whether such solidarity also applies to the indemnity paid by the State.

The Cassation's decision and the principle of unity

The Third Civil Section upheld the appeal of the State Administration, quashing the challenged judgment and remanding it to the Court of Appeal of Palermo. The Court formulated the following maxim:

The victim of mafia-type crimes, in the event of multiple compensation convictions - rendered for the same act in separate criminal proceedings against different co-perpetrators -, is entitled to a single payment from the Revolving Fund referred to in Law no. 512 of 1999.

This principle categorically excludes the possibility of duplicating the relief. The Revolving Fund does not have a punitive function towards individual offenders, but rather an indemnity and social solidarity function aimed at covering the prejudice actually suffered by the victim. Since the damage suffered is unique, the indemnity cannot be multiplied based on the number of co-authors of the crime judged in separate trials.

Practical implications for victims and the Fund

The Cassation's ruling clearly outlines the operational boundaries for requests to access the Revolving Fund. To understand the impact of this decision, it is useful to summarize the key points that emerged:

• Indemnity nature of the Fund: The purpose of Law no. 512 of 1999 is to alleviate the consequences of the crime, not to allow speculation or unjustified enrichment of the victim beyond the actual value of the damage suffered.
• Unity of the historical fact: Even if the perpetrators are judged in different trials (perhaps for procedural reasons or because arrests occurred at different times), the harmful event for the victim remains unique.
• Consistency with civil liability: Just as in common law the payment made by one joint debtor releases the others, the disbursement of the indemnity by the Fund for that specific act exhausts the victim's right against the Fund itself.

Conclusions

With Order no. 29890/2025, the Court of Cassation reaffirms a principle of rationality and equity in the allocation of public resources. While ensuring the State's maximum support for victims of organized crime, the decision prevents distortive drifts of the system. The right to compensation and indemnity must always be commensurate with the actual extent of the damage, preventing procedural fragmentation from translating into an unjustified multiplier of indemnities at the expense of the community.