Cass. pen., Sez. II, Sent. n. 21618 of 2024: Reflections on Receiving Stolen Goods and Identifying the Predicate Offence

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation, no. 21618 of May 30, 2024, offers an important opportunity for reflection on the delicate issue of receiving stolen goods and, in particular, on the indispensable ascertainment of the criminal origin of the money in question. In the specific case, A.A. had been found guilty of the offence of receiving stolen goods, but the Court of Cassation upheld her appeal, highlighting the insufficiency of the evidence regarding the illicit origin of the sum in question.

Context of the Judgment

In the proceedings, A.A. was found in possession of a sum of money exceeding 200,000 euros, concealed in a suspicious manner. However, the Court of Appeal had confirmed the conviction based on circumstantial evidence which, although suggestive, did not guarantee a concrete ascertainment of the predicate offence, as provided for by art. 5 of Legislative Decree 74/2000. The Court of Cassation stressed that the absence of a clear link between the sum and a specific crime cannot justify a conviction.

The possibility of tracing back to the predicate offence must be concretely demonstrated; it cannot be limited to general indications.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

Italian case law has always held that, for the offence of receiving stolen goods to be established, not only the unjustified possession of assets is necessary, but also the identification of a predicate offence. The Court of Cassation, referring to previous rulings, clarified that mere supposition of an illicit origin is not sufficient; a more rigorous demonstration is required.

• Need for concrete proof of the criminal origin.
• Implications for the ascertainment of tax crimes.
• Relevance of circumstantial evidence and provided justifications.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 21618 of 2024 reiterates the importance of a rigorous approach in ascertaining offences of receiving stolen goods. The identification of the predicate offence is not merely a formal matter but a substantive requirement that must be met to ensure justice and the defence of the defendant's rights. The Court of Cassation therefore calls for a more in-depth and specific analysis of the facts, so that judgments are supported by concrete evidence and not by mere indications.