Receiving an intimidating phrase, an aggressive WhatsApp message or a frightening voice note immediately raises very practical questions: is this actually a punishable threat? Is it necessary to file a criminal complaint? And if you are accused instead, how can a serious outburst be distinguished from a criminal offence? The offence of threats provided for by Article 612 of the criminal code does not depend solely on an isolated word: what matters is the meaning of the message, the context, the relationship between the parties and the way in which the phrase is perceived.
In this guide I will explain which elements make a threat legally relevant, what changes if the event occurs through chats or voice messages, and why repeated conduct may require a different classification. The aim is to help you recognise the decisive facts, without confusing a heated conflict with a foregone criminal conclusion.
What the offence of threats punishes
Article 612 punishes the threat of causing unjust harm. Therefore, an unpleasant tone or offensive criticism is not enough: words, gestures or other behaviours must communicate to the recipient the possibility of suffering undue harm. The threatened harm may concern safety, property, work, personal relationships or other interests of the person, provided its content is concretely intimidating in the specific case.
The basic form is normally punishable upon a complaint filed by the victim. Article 612 provides for ordinary threats a fine of up to 1,032 euros; if the threat is serious or is carried out in the manners referred to in Article 339 of the criminal code, the penalty becomes imprisonment for up to one year. The current text also provides for specific cases in which proceedings are initiated ex officio, meaning even without a complaint from the victim. You can read the coordinated rules in article 612 of the criminal code reported by Legislative Decree no. 150 of 2022.
Gravity does not automatically coincide with the speaker's anger. A threat can be serious due to the type of harm threatened, the methods used and the context in which it arrives. A reference to physical violence, knowledge of personal circumstances of the recipient, the presence of prior incidents or a particularly intimidating manner may be relevant. However, the assessment does not end with the subjective feeling of the recipient: the overall meaning of the fact must be considered.
Harsh words, warnings and threats: the difference matters
A bitter dispute is not in itself a threat. Insulting expressions, reprimands or vague phrases can be very unpleasant without containing the announcement of undue harm. The useful question is this: does the message communicate that someone will suffer harmful and undue consequences, or does it merely express anger, contempt or the intention to exercise a right?
Announcing a lawful initiative is different from outlining retaliation. Saying that a report will be filed, that legal action will be taken to recover a debt or that protection will be sought from a judge does not amount, for this reason alone, to threatening unjust harm. The distinction changes if the reference to a seemingly legitimate action actually serves to impose something that is not due or is accompanied by the announcement of unlawful conduct.
Context clarifies the meaning of words. The same phrase can change in weight if it is uttered during an isolated quarrel, after a long sequence of messages, in front of people who reinforce the intimidation or by someone who knows personal information about the recipient. For this reason it is imprudent to extract a single line from a conversation and treat it as if it alone contained the entire event.
The defence of the suspect also starts from the complete context. If an allegation concerns a brief phrase or an audio recording, the preceding and subsequent messages, the reason for the conflict, the actual identity of the person who used an account and the tone of the entire communication may be decisive. This does not automatically turn a threatening phrase into lawful conduct, but it prevents the legal classification from being based on a fragment lacking its real framework.
Chats, screenshots and voice messages: what digital material can prove
A chat can be relevant, but it must be read in its entirety. Written messages, voice notes, display photographs and social media conversations can document words, timing and interlocutors. A screenshot, however, only shows what has been selected and does not prove by itself that the conversation is complete, unedited or attributable with certainty to a specific person.
Keeping the original helps avoid losing useful information. For anyone who believes they have received threats, it is important to avoid edits, modifications and deletions of the conversation or the voice file. What may count is the device on which the content is present, the sequence of messages, date and time, the profile used and any elements connecting the account to its author. Anyone under investigation also has an interest in not altering the data that can explain the actual content of the exchange.
A voice note requires attention to content and origin. The voice, the spoken words, any editing and the way the file was received may be subject to verification. Transcribing an audio recording can be useful for orientation, but a transcription does not replace the original file: pauses, tone, overlaps and unclear words can affect the meaning attributed to the message.
Digital evidence does not eliminate the need for investigations. An apparently clear chat can leave open questions regarding the author, the integrity of the contents or the meaning of the expression used. Likewise, the fact that a message arrived from a known number does not automatically close all discussion about its origin. Digital documentation must therefore be linked to other available facts, rather than treated as self-sufficient truth.
Criminal complaint for threats: term and significance of the choice
For ordinary threats, a criminal complaint is normally necessary. The complaint is the declaration by which the victim expresses the will to proceed for an act provided for by law as a crime; it can be submitted personally or through a special attorney, as established by article 336 of the code of criminal procedure. It is therefore not sufficient to generically reconstruct a dispute if the will to initiate proceedings does not clearly emerge.
The ordinary term is three months from the notice of the fact. Article 124 of the criminal code establishes that, barring different legal provisions, the right to file a complaint cannot be exercised after three months from the day on which the fact constituting the crime is known. The decisive date must not be confused with the moment one decides to react, nor with the one in which legal advice is obtained: for this reason it is essential to reconstruct with precision when the content was known. The reference is in article 124 of the criminal code.
Not all threat offences follow the same regime. Article 612 identifies hypotheses in which proceedings are pursued ex officio: these include threats committed in the ways indicated in Article 339, serious threats accompanied by special effect aggravating circumstances other than recidivism, and acts committed to the detriment of a person lacking capacity due to age or infirmity. The distinction affects the necessity of the complaint, but does not allow the case to be defined solely by looking at a single word in the message.
The complaint is not a formula to be used automatically. Before proceeding, it is useful to have a clear understanding of the communication's content, dates, relationship with the other person and available material. If there are multiple episodes, they must be kept distinct without artificially adding up different facts; if instead the episodes form a sequence, their very continuity can change the overall classification.
If you are under investigation for threats, which aspects can change the defence
Being accused does not mean the meaning of the phrase has already been established. The allegation must be examined together with the complete text, the transmission methods, the relationships between the individuals and the elements allowing the message to be attributed to the suspect. A chat excerpt, a forwarded voice note or a phrase reported by others may require very different verifications.
The complete reconstruction can be decisive. In a dispute between neighbours, ex-partners, family members or individuals bound by an economic relationship, the fact preceding the contested phrase can explain references that otherwise appear obscure. It does not justify unlawful conduct, but it helps to understand whether there really was the threat of unjust harm, whether the recipient understood the message in a different sense or whether the content was reported in a partial manner.
Not deleting or manipulating relevant conversations is a prudent choice. Deleting messages, altering screenshots or trying to construct a version of the contents after the events can aggravate evidentiary problems instead of solving them. It is preferable to separate what is documented from what remains merely an interpretation and to face formal acts without underestimating their consequences.
When repeated threats can become persecutory acts
Repetition does not automatically turn every threat into stalking. Article 612-bis of the criminal code concerns an autonomous offence: it requires repeated conduct of threats or harassment and one of the effects provided for by law, such as a lingering and serious state of anxiety or fear, a well-founded fear for one's safety, or a change in lifestyle habits. The core of the regulation results from the text of article 612-bis updated by law no. 181 of 2025.
The number of messages is not the only important data. Two communications are not irrelevant simply because they are few, nor does a long list of messages alone prove persecutory acts. It must be understood whether the behaviours are truly connected, whether they have a harassing or intimidating character and whether they have produced one of the effects required by the rule. Changing routes to go to work, avoiding usual places or interrupting daily activities are facts different from generic concern.
A terminated emotional relationship can make the picture more delicate. After a separation, a breakup or the end of a relationship, insistent communications must not be trivialised nor automatically qualified. Frequency, content, any stakeouts or unwanted contacts, the fear concretely generated and the consequences on daily life all count. A correct distinction protects both those seeking protection and those who must defend themselves against an accusation that does not adhere to the facts.
Frequently asked questions
Can a WhatsApp message be enough to report a threat?
It can be an important element, but it is not automatically conclusive. The message must be read together with the complete conversation, the account identity, the date, the context and the potential presence of other facts. For the criminal complaint, it is essential to clearly express the will to proceed; screenshots and chats can then help describe the fact and support its reconstruction.
By when can I file a criminal complaint for threats?
The ordinary term is three months from the notice of the fact. The rule applies barring different legal provisions and requires attention to the date on which you learned of the relevant communication or behaviour. It is not prudent to wait trusting that the term runs from the moment the conflict worsens or one decides to react.
Is a serious threat always prosecutable ex officio?
No, using the expression "serious threat" is not enough. Article 612 distinguishes between penalty increases and procedural admissibility. Proceedings are pursued ex officio in the hypotheses provided for by the rule, including the manners referred to in Article 339, serious threats with special effect aggravating circumstances other than recidivism, and acts against a person lacking capacity due to age or infirmity.
If I receive many threatening messages, is it always stalking?
No, repetition alone is not sufficient. For persecutory acts, repeated conduct and at least one of the effects indicated in Article 612-bis are needed: serious and lingering anxiety or fear, well-founded fear for safety, or modification of lifestyle habits. Dates, contents and concrete effects distinguish the situations.
If I am accused, should I delete chats and voice notes to avoid worsening the situation?
No, deleting or altering relevant material can be counterproductive. Complete conversations can contain favourable elements, clarify the context or show that a screenshot is partial. The defence requires separating verifiable data from interpretations, not eliminating what could be examined in the proceedings.