A business leasing agreement may contain a financial cost higher than what appears from the interest rate indicated in the contract alone. If you are wondering whether interest, commissions, and expenses have exceeded the anti-usury threshold, the point is not to look for an isolated percentage: it is necessary to compare the effective cost of the transaction with the limit provided for that specific category of leasing and for the period in which the conditions were agreed upon.

In this guide I want to clarify what is meant by objective usury, what data is needed for a serious verification, and why an econometric appraisal can be useful only if built on complete documents and declared criteria. We will also see what changes between ordinary interest and default interest, and why the recovery of sums is not an automatic refund nor does it necessarily coincide with a claim for damages.

What makes a lease objectively usurious

Objective usury depends on exceeding the threshold rate. The law establishes a limit beyond which interest is always usurious; the control therefore does not require proving that the user was in economic difficulty. Article 644 of the Italian Criminal Code, as amended by Law no. 108 of 1996, also considers within the cost of credit not only interest in the strict sense, but also commissions, remunerations, and expenses connected to the disbursement, excluding taxes and duties. The current text of the regulation can be consulted in Law no. 108 of 1996 on Normattiva.

The threshold rate is not the same for every financing. It starts from the TEGM, i.e., the global effective average rate recorded quarterly for homogeneous operations. The limit is obtained by increasing the TEGM by one quarter and adding four percentage points, provided that the difference between the threshold and the TEGM cannot exceed eight points. For this reason, it is not correct to compare a lease with the threshold provided for a mortgage, a credit facility, or a personal loan.

The date of the agreement is decisive. For the application of Article 644 of the Italian Criminal Code and Article 1815, second paragraph, of the Italian Civil Code, Decree-Law no. 394 of 2000 clarifies that interest exceeding the limit at the time it is promised or agreed upon is relevant, regardless of subsequent payment. The verification of original usury therefore requires the quarterly decree applicable on the date of signing, not the current threshold rate. The temporal reference is explained in the coordinated text of Decree-Law no. 394 of 2000.

The correct category of leasing changes the comparison

The term "business leasing" does not identify a single threshold. The classification distinguishes between fixed and variable rate real estate leasing, aeronautical and motor vehicle leasing, and equipment leasing. For some categories, the amount of the transaction is also relevant. The financed asset, the type of rate, and the amount are not secondary details: they can lead to a different threshold and change the outcome of the comparison.

The real financial structure of the contract matters. Machinery, a vehicle intended for business activities, and a property used by the company are not automatically placed in the same category. It is necessary to identify what technical form the relationship actually assumed and what classification was provided in the decree applicable at the time of stipulation. The ministerial decree of September 23, 2025 confirms the separation between the different categories of leasing in the classification of credit operations published in the Official Gazette.

Thresholds are published quarter by quarter. The decrees report TEGMs and threshold rates for the provided categories, but their use in a historical dispute requires tracing back to the provision applicable in the quarter of the agreement. To understand the detection mechanism, it can be useful to consult the decree on TEGMs published on June 30, 2026, which expressly indicates the quarterly survey and the reference to the annex with the tables.

How the effective cost of leasing is calculated

The TAN is not enough to exclude usury. The nominal annual rate measures only a part of the agreed remuneration. In leasing, the verification must consider actual economic flows: the financed amount, any advance or maxi-installment, the installments, initial commissions, and other charges that constitute the price of the credit. The calculation must then translate these flows into an annual rate comparable with the threshold.

Every cost must be qualified before being summed up. An expense does not enter the calculation just because it appears on the invoice or because it was incurred on the same day as the stipulation. It must be clarified whether it is a cost connected to the disbursement of the credit or, instead, the price of a distinct service, a tax, or a duty. The law excludes taxes and duties; for other charges, the concrete connection with the financing and the rules of the survey are central elements.

The redemption price requires a separate reading. In leasing, the final purchase option concerns the asset and does not automatically coincide with interest. However, it is not enough to call an item "redemption price" to exempt it from any analysis: it is necessary to read the financial plan, the contract, and the economic function of the charge. The same caution applies to insurance premiums, investigation costs, collection expenses, management commissions, and charges applied at the time of stipulation.

An econometric appraisal serves to make the calculation verifiable. A useful document indicates the documents used, the capital taken as a basis, all flows considered, the date of each flow, the formula used, and the chosen threshold rate. If one of these steps is missing, the numerical result becomes difficult to verify. The appraisal does not replace the legal qualification of the clauses, but it can show precisely where a possible exceedance originates.

Ordinary interest, default interest, and contract termination

Ordinary interest remunerates programmed financing. It is included in the installments or in any case accrues according to the contractual plan from the beginning of the relationship. If the dispute concerns original objective usury, the main comparison is between the actual contractual cost of the financing and the threshold in force when those conditions were agreed upon.

Default interest, on the other hand, concerns delay in fulfillment. It can come into play after the failure to pay one or more installments, together with reminder expenses, penalties, or consequences provided for termination. It is not correct to obtain a rate to compare with the threshold by mechanically adding the ordinary rate and the default rate: they have different functions and moments of application. An in-depth analysis published by the Court of Cassation expressly recalls this distinction for a leasing relationship: default interest and usury in the documentation of the Court of Cassation.

After default, it is necessary to verify what was actually applied. The United Sections of the Court of Cassation have specified that, if the claim concerns default after it has occurred, the assessment considers the interest concretely practiced in the default; if the dispute is proposed during the relationship, the agreement and the threshold of the moment of the agreement are looked at. The official summary of decision no. 19597 of September 18, 2020 is available in the review of the Court of Cassation.

What effects a well-founded dispute can have

Exceeding the threshold does not generate flat-rate compensation. The first effect to distinguish is the validity of the clause on interest and charges that produced the rate above the threshold. Article 1815, second paragraph, of the Italian Civil Code provides for usurious interest the nullity of the clause and the non-due nature of the interest. The application of this rule to a leasing relationship, however, requires precisely identifying the contested provisions and the effect requested on the financial relationship.

The refund concerns sums that turn out to be not due. If interest or charges without title have been paid after a finding of nullity, the restitution claim must quantify the payments and explain the recalculation criterion. It is not sufficient to indicate the total of the installments paid, because capital installments, consideration for the enjoyment of the asset, financial charges, and taxes can coexist in the installments. The point is to separate the components and reconstruct the economic effect of the contested clause.

Out-of-court dispute and legal action are not the same choice. A written request to the leasing company can set out the reconstruction, contest the threshold exceedance, and ask for a recalculation or the refund of specific amounts. If the response does not solve the problem, legal action requires adequate allegations and proof. In both hypotheses, the contract, the financial plan, the general conditions, bank statements, and actual payments are more important than a calculation performed on partial data.

Suspended installments unilaterally can aggravate the problem. A dispute over usury does not in itself authorize interrupting payments without evaluating the clauses of forfeiture, termination, and return of the asset. If the lease is still ongoing, it is necessary to keep distinct the right intended to be asserted and the consequences of default. This prevents a potentially well-founded verification from intertwining with new requests for unpaid installments, default, or termination.

For an initial reconstruction, essential but complete documents are sufficient. Normally useful are the signed contract with economic and general conditions, the installment plan, initial invoices or debit notes, modification communications, and payment statements. If there has been delay or termination, the leasing company's calculations are also needed. It is not necessary to immediately turn the problem into a lawsuit: first, it must be verified whether data, category, and period truly allow for comparison.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I verify usury from the leasing contract alone?

The contract is indispensable, but often not enough. The installment plan, initial costs, debit documents, and proof of payments are also needed, because the effective rate depends on financial flows and charges actually agreed upon or applied. For default, calculations produced after delay or termination also become relevant.

Which threshold rate should I use for a business lease?

The rate of the correct category in the quarter of the agreement must be used. Equipment leasing, real estate leasing, and motor vehicle leasing do not necessarily share the same threshold. If the relationship has been modified with an agreement introducing new economic conditions, that agreement may require a distinct temporal examination.

Do investigation expenses always enter into the calculation?

No, not just because of the name of the item. The law considers commissions, remunerations, and expenses connected to the credit disbursement, while excluding taxes and duties. It is therefore necessary to understand what the charge concretely remunerates and whether it constitutes a necessary cost of the financing or an independent service.

Can I add ordinary interest and default interest?

It is not correct to automatically add the two rates together. Ordinary interest and default interest operate at different times and with different functions. To contest default, it is necessary to examine the clause, the calculation basis, and the amounts concretely requested after default, without constructing a percentage just by adding two contractual values.

If usury is found, are all paid installments refunded to me?

No, the refund does not automatically concern the entire amount of the installments. It is necessary to distinguish capital, consideration for the asset, taxes, and financial components. The request must indicate which interest or charges would not be due, why the clause is contested, and what payments were made in application of that clause.

Institutional references used

To delve deeper into the discipline, the main references are Law no. 108 of 1996, Decree-Law no. 394 of 2000, and the quarterly decrees of the Ministry of Economy and Finance published in the Official Gazette. The decisive data always remains that applicable to the single agreement.