Judgment No. 33856 of 2024 on Notary's Liability for Embezzlement

The recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, No. 33856 of 2024, has highlighted important issues concerning the criminal liability of notaries in relation to the crime of embezzlement. In particular, the Court examined the position of a notary accused of appropriating sums intended for the payment of registration tax, raising questions about the qualification of the conduct and the application of current regulations.

The Judicial Case

Notary A.A. was convicted of embezzlement after it emerged that, despite having received funds from clients for the payment of registration tax, he had not paid them to the treasury. The Court of Appeal of Palermo, partially amending the first-instance judgment, reduced the sentence but confirmed the notary's liability. The defence lawyers appealed, arguing that the notary did not hold the status of a public official and that there had been no appropriation until the payment deadline had passed.

The Court clarified that the notary, while not a public official in the strict sense, is nevertheless liable for sums received as tax, constituting a serious breach of duty.

Arguments of the Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation rejected the defence lawyers' arguments, stating that the notary's qualification as a public official extends to his functions as a tax representative. According to case law, the crime of embezzlement is completed not only by appropriation but also by mere delay in paying sums received. It was established that the inversion of the title of possession occurs when the notary uses the funds for personal purposes, thus making the existence of the crime evident.

• Recognition of the notary's qualification as a public official in relation to tax obligations.
• The conduct of non-payment of tax constitutes the crime of embezzlement.
• The deadline for performance does not exclude criminal liability.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 33856 of 2024 represents an important step forward in defining the liability of notaries in tax matters. It clarifies that, despite the complexity of notarial functions, compliance with tax obligations is essential and their failure to comply can lead to significant criminal consequences. This case underscores the importance of vigilance and transparency in professional practices, so that professionals in the sector not only comply with regulations but also actively contribute to fiscal legality.