An accusation of receiving stolen goods requires precise distinctions. If you are under investigation or facing charges in Milan, you might wonder whether it is enough to have bought a used item, how much the price and the absence of documents matter, or how to prove that you knew the illicit origin of the asset. Another doubt concerns the difference between receiving stolen goods and negligent purchase, a less serious offense that does not apply automatically.
In this guide, I explain which elements make up the offense, why so-called good faith must be reconstructed through concrete facts, and what defensive alternatives may emerge. We will also examine the difference between fully challenging the accusation, requesting a different legal classification, and discussing the particularly minor nature of the offense.
When a purchase can become receiving stolen goods
It is not necessary to have personally bought the item. Article 648 of the criminal code includes the purchase, reception, concealment of money or things coming from a crime, and intermediation aimed at making them be purchased, received, or hidden. Free delivery, custody on behalf of another person, or participation in the sale can therefore take on relevance, provided that the other prerequisites are also met.
The criminal origin must be proven. For the ordinary hypothesis, the money or thing must come from a crime. Since 2021, the provision also contemplates, with a different penalty, certain misdemeanors punished within the thresholds indicated by the law. A prior conviction of the offender of the underlying crime is not strictly necessary, but the illicit origin of the asset cannot merely be imagined or taken for granted.
Anyone who participated in the initial crime is not liable for receiving stolen goods for the same asset. The rule operates outside the cases of complicity in the underlying crime. If a person contributes, for example, to the theft and then keeps the stolen thing, the issue is not simply receiving stolen goods: it is necessary to establish what role they played before and during the original action.
The ordinary hypothesis is punished with imprisonment from two to eight years and a fine from 516 to 10,329 euros. Specific rules are provided for particular origins, for acts committed in the exercise of a professional activity, and for those of a particularly minor nature. The text resulting from the amendments can be consulted in legislative decree no. 195 of November 8, 2021 on Normattiva.
Intent: knowing the origin or concretely accepting the risk
Receiving stolen goods is an intentional crime. The prosecution must prove that the person knew the illicit origin or concretely represented such a possibility and chose to act anyway. Furthermore, the conduct must be aimed at procuring a profit for oneself or others. Profit does not coincide solely with a subsequent resale: the advantage obtained by purchasing under heavily favorable conditions can also be relevant.
A simple suspicion is not enough for eventual intent. The Joint Sessions of the Court of Cassation have distinguished the concrete acceptance of risk from mere negligence: elements capable of showing that the buyer seriously represented the criminal origin to themselves and chose not to stop are required. The principle and the distinction from negligent purchase are illustrated in the 2010 Criminal Review of the Court of Cassation.
Price, seller, and delivery methods are clues, not automatisms. A manifestly disproportionate price, removed identification numbers, mutually incompatible explanations, clandestine sales, requests for untraceable payments, or messages revealing awareness can count. None of these data should be isolated from the context: a low price during a documented sale has a different meaning than an anonymous delivery accompanied by a refusal to indicate the origin of the asset.
Good faith emerges from verifiable behaviors. An invoice, a receipt, the identification of the seller, complete conversations, a public advertisement, and a traced payment can support the defensive reconstruction. However, they do not constitute an absolute guarantee: even an apparent document must be compared with what the buyer actually knew at the time of reception.
Receiving stolen goods and negligent purchase are not the same thing
Negligent purchase punishes the failure to check in the presence of suspicious signals. Article 712 of the criminal code concerns anyone who buys or receives things without first ascertaining their lawful origin, when the quality of the asset, the conditions of the person offering it, or the amount of the price give reason to suspect. It is a misdemeanor punished alternatively with arrest of up to six months or a fine.
The main difference concerns the attitude toward risk. In receiving stolen goods, the person knows the illicit origin or concretely accepts the possibility; in negligent purchase, they do not carry out the checks that objective signals require. For the latter offense, according to the Joint Sessions, it is not essential to prove that the thing actually came from a crime: the suspicious situation and the omitted ascertainment matter.
It is not enough to declare that one did not know. If the elements show conscious indifference in the face of the concrete possibility of a criminal origin, receiving stolen goods can be contested. If only imprudent conduct emerges, Article 712 may come into discussion. The Constitutional Court, order no. 207 of 2019, highlighted the structural and sanctionatory diversity of the two offenses.
A ruling recalled in the September 2025 Review of the Court of Cassation also confirms that the relationship between the rules does not always depend on an abstract formula regarding good faith: the type of underlying crime and the objective elements of the conduct must also be considered.
What facts can decide the defense
The decisive moment is that of purchase or reception. It is necessary to understand what you knew back then, what information had been provided to you, and what anomalies were perceptible. An explanation received months later does not automatically prove initial awareness; however, it can affect the meaning of the subsequent custody, concealment, or transfer of the asset.
Complete communications matter more than fragments. A single message may seem compromising if separated from the preceding or following conversation. Chats, emails, advertisements, photographs, bank transfers, platform data, and commercial documents can clarify the seller's identity, agreed price, description of the item, and warranty requests. It is important to keep them intact, without deletions or modifications.
The origin must connect precisely to the contested asset. Serial numbers, identification codes, technical characteristics, and the owner's documents can confirm or deny this connection. The similarity between two common goods is not always enough; on the contrary, a unique code can make the relationship much more precise.
Statements must be read in the procedural context. Contradictions and late explanations can be used as clues, but they do not replace the proof of the elements of the crime. Before making statements, it is useful to understand the charge, review the available documents, and distinguish what you remember directly from what you learned later.
Acquittal, different classification, and particularly minor nature
The first possibility is to contest the charge of receiving stolen goods. Proof of the origin from a crime, the attributed conduct, the profit, or the intent may be lacking. If the evidentiary framework leaves room only for conjectures, the defense does not necessarily have to request a less serious offense: it can argue the non-existence of the crime.
Reclassification to negligent purchase is a distinct path. It becomes relevant when there are signals that would have required checks, but the conscious acceptance of the concrete criminal origin does not emerge. It should not be confused with a mandatory admission: the correct classification depends on the proven facts and can be discussed as an alternative to the main request.
Article 648 provides for mitigated treatment for acts of a particularly minor nature. The judge considers the entirety of the affair, not just the economic value of the asset. Methods of conduct, pursued advantage, origin, duration of concealment, and role played can make the fact more or less serious. Recognizing the mitigated hypothesis reduces the penalty treatment, but it does not equate to declaring that the crime does not exist.
Article 131-bis can instead exclude punishability. A particularly minor offense and non-habitual behavior are required, evaluated also considering the conduct subsequent to the event. Receiving stolen goods abstractly falls within the limit based on the minimum penalty, but application is not automatic and requires the ascertainment of the crime. The current text is available in article 131-bis of the criminal code on Normattiva.
Restitution and compensation do not automatically cancel the accusation. However, they can affect the evaluation of subsequent conduct, concrete gravity, and the penalty. Receiving stolen goods is normally prosecuted ex officio: an agreement with the injured party or the withdrawal of a complaint relating to the original crime does not independently determine the closure of the proceedings.
Procedural choices and consequences to consider
Strategy depends on the quality of the evidence. If documents and communications support the lawful purchase, ordinary trial may allow them to be discussed and prosecution sources to be examined. If, instead, objective proof is difficult to contest, intent, legal classification, mitigating circumstances, and subsequent conduct assume greater importance.
Abbreviated trial and plea bargaining respond to different logics. The abbreviated trial generally entails a decision on the collected documents, barring integrations permitted by law. Plea bargaining requires an agreement on the penalty with the public prosecutor and the judge's control. Convenience cannot be established solely by comparing reductions: evidence, confiscations, effects of the decision, and the possibility of obtaining an acquittal all matter.
A seized asset opens an independent question. It is necessary to distinguish evidentiary seizure, aimed at preserving evidence, from other constraints with different purposes. The possibility of requesting restitution or contesting the measure depends on the title, the relationship with the crime, and the procedural phase. Returning the item to the owner does not single-handedly define the suspect's responsibility.
If the proceedings take place in Milan, I can examine the charge and the alternatives permitted in the specific phase with you, avoiding treating acquittal, reclassification, cause of non-punishability, and the choice of an alternative trial as absolute equivalents.
Frequently asked questions
Does a very low price suffice to accuse me of receiving stolen goods?
No, the price is only an element. It becomes significant if it is manifestly disproportionate and accompanied by other anomalies, such as the seller's anonymity, removed codes, unexplained absence of documents, or clandestine methods. The prosecution must still prove the origin required by Article 712 and your intentional attitude.
If I acted in good faith, can I be accused of negligent purchase?
The absence of intent excludes receiving stolen goods, but not necessarily negligent purchase. If the quality of the thing, the seller's conditions, or the price demanded checks and you did not perform them, Article 712 can be contested. If objective reasons for suspicion were also lacking, the defense can argue the non-existence of both offenses.
Does immediately returning the asset close the proceedings?
Restitution does not automatically extinguish the offense of receiving stolen goods. However, it can be evaluated as subsequent conduct, affect concrete gravity, and contribute, together with other requirements, to the discussion on the particularly minor nature. It does not retroactively modify what the person knew at the time of purchase, reception, or concealment.
Can receiving stolen goods be contested if the person who committed the theft is not found?
Yes, identifying the offender is not essential. However, it must be proven that the asset comes from the underlying crime. Article 648 also applies when the author of that crime is not imputable or punishable, or when a condition of procedibility referring to their conduct is missing.
Is it advisable to request plea bargaining immediately?
There is no choice valid in every proceeding. First, it is necessary to distinguish between contestable evidence, the possibility of acquittal, potential negligent purchase, and hypotheses of particularly minor nature. Plea bargaining can reduce procedural exposure, but it entails waiving the discussion of the accusation through an ordinary trial on the merits.
How to navigate proceedings in Milan
Defense must start from the concrete charge. Origin of the asset, attributed role, content of communications, profit, and awareness can lead to very different conclusions. If you have received a document relating to proceedings for receiving stolen goods in Milan, you can contact me to understand which issues require an immediate response and which alternatives are still viable.