External participation in mafia association: analysis of Cass. pen., Section V, no. 18256 of 2019
The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 18256 of 2019 has sparked heated debate regarding external participation in mafia association, highlighting the mechanisms of mafia infiltration into the business world. In the case in question, the Court confirmed the liability of A.M. and S.F., entrepreneurs accused of contributing to the strengthening of a mafia association through illicit practices such as over-invoicing and bribery.
Context of the ruling
The Court of Appeal of Messina had already convicted the two entrepreneurs for external participation in mafia association, as they had acted as intermediaries between the public works contractor and the local mafia clan. The lower court judges emphasised how the defendants' conduct was aimed at allowing the payment of bribes through the over-invoicing of works, generating illicit profits for the mafia association.
Arguments of the defence and the Court
The defence lawyers raised numerous objections, contesting the reliability of the statements of justice collaborators used as primary evidence. However, the Court deemed these statements coherent and credible, emphasising that the reliability of the collaborators was not compromised by any contradictions that emerged in other proceedings.
The Court highlighted that the role of colluding entrepreneurs was fully reconstructed, based on the consistent statements of justice collaborators.
- Criminal liability for external participation in mafia association
- Mechanisms of over-invoicing and bribery
- Assessment of the reliability of justice collaborators' statements
Implications and final considerations
This ruling represents an important precedent in the fight against the mafia, highlighting how mafia infiltration into the business world can also occur through apparently legitimate business practices. The decision of the Court of Cassation reinforces the idea that criminal liability for external participation in mafia association is not limited to those who are active members of the association, but also extends to those who facilitate its operations, contributing to its illicit purposes.
Conclusions
In conclusion, judgment no. 18256 of 2019 of the Court of Cassation represents a fundamental step in defining criminal liability in cases of external participation in mafia association. It underscores the importance of a thorough analysis of evidence and the context in which mafia dynamics develop, contributing to a better understanding and application of laws against organised crime.
