Comment on Judgment no. 26527 of 2024: The 'Cui Prodest' Principle in Conviction for False Declaration

Judgment no. 26527 of 2024 offers significant insights regarding the adequacy of reasoning in criminal proceedings, particularly concerning the crime of false declaration. The Court of Cassation has established that a guilty verdict can be based on the 'cui prodest' principle, provided it is supported by further factual elements of certain evidentiary value. This principle, which implies a reflection on who benefits from a certain behaviour, was applied in a case where elements of parallel accounting and testimonies of illicit agreements were found.

The 'Cui Prodest' Principle

The 'cui prodest' principle is a legal concept of great relevance, used to assess criminal liability based on the benefits a person might derive from an unlawful act. In the case examined by the Court, this principle played a crucial role in supporting the reasoning for the conviction. The Court clarified that the absence of direct evidence is not sufficient to exclude the defendant's liability, but it is also necessary to consider circumstantial evidence and presumptions.

• Discovery of parallel 'off-the-books' accounting
• Testimonies on agreements for services without invoices
• Evidentiary value of further evidence

The Reasoning for the Conviction

The Court deemed the reasoning for the conviction correct, highlighting how the discovery of parallel accounting and the collected testimonies provided solid support for the prosecution's case. This aspect is fundamental, as the reasoning must be not only adequate but also consistent with the presented evidence. In this case, the appellate judge demonstrated that all evidence had been considered, thus confirming the adequacy of the reasoning.

'Cui prodest' principle - Admissibility - Conditions - Factual circumstances.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 26527 of 2024 represents an important precedent in criminal law, particularly regarding the assessment of the reasoning in judgments. It underscores the need for an integrated approach that considers not only direct evidence but also circumstantial evidence and presumptions, in line with the 'cui prodest' principle. This approach can prove crucial for a correct interpretation of criminal liability and to ensure that justice is effectively pursued.