False Ideological Statements in Public Documents: Analysis of Judgment No. 33056 of 2024

Judgment No. 33056 of May 21, 2024, by the Court of Cassation offers an important reflection on the crime of ideological falsehood, particularly on the role of municipal technicians in certifying the completion and execution of public works. This decision, issued by President R. Catena and rapporteur F. Cananzi, clarifies the configurability of the crime under Article 479 of the Penal Code and clearly distinguishes between public documents and administrative certificates.

The Case Under Review

The case concerns the defendant G. Gualandi, a municipal technician, accused of falsely attesting to the completion and execution of works in accordance with contractual requirements. The Court of Appeal of Bologna had already rejected the appeal, confirming the defendant's criminal liability. The Supreme Court reiterated that the technician's conduct constitutes the crime of ideological falsehood in a public document, as the attestations issued are not limited to expressing a subjective judgment but consist of objective and technical evaluations, bound to the approved project.

Distinction Between Public Documents and Administrative Certificates

“Municipal technician falsely attesting to the completion and execution of works in accordance with contractual requirements - Crime under Art. 479 of the Penal Code - Configurability - Reasons. The conduct of a municipal employee who, as a municipal technician and works supervisor, falsely attests to the completion and execution of works in accordance with contractual requirements constitutes the crime of ideological falsehood in a public document, and not the crime of ideological falsehood in administrative certificates, as these attestations do not constitute purely subjective value judgments, but entirely objective and technical judgments, bound to the approved project and intended to control its regular and faithful execution, with the consequence that the evaluation, although present, presupposes an unavoidable act of verification that constitutes the very content of the public document.”

The Court clarified the nature of the attestations issued by technicians, emphasizing that they are not mere declarations of subjective value but attestations that require objective verification in compliance with current regulations. In this way, the Court excluded the possibility of classifying the crime as ideological falsehood in administrative certificates, reserving a more incisive scope in terms of gravity and responsibility for the crime under Article 479 of the Penal Code.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 33056 of 2024 represents an important reference point for jurisprudence on ideological falsehood. By reiterating the criminal liability of a municipal technician who falsely attests to the completion of works, it highlights the importance of regularity and transparency in the management of public works. This jurisprudential trend calls for a broader reflection on professional ethics and the necessity of strict adherence to regulations by all parties involved in the realization of public works.