Analysis of Judgment Cass. pen., Section VI, no. 62 of 2018: Extortion and Abuse of Power

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 62 of January 3, 2018, represents an important clarification in the field of criminal law, particularly regarding the crime of extortion, governed by art. 319-quater of the criminal code. In this article, we will analyze the main aspects of the decision, highlighting the legal implications and responsibilities of the public officials involved.

Context of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal of L'Aquila had previously convicted S.V. and P.I. for abusing their positions as public officials, inducing M.P. to promise them an advantage consisting of not reporting building abuses. This conduct led to the charge of extortion, and the Cassation judgment confirmed the conviction, rejecting the defendants' appeals.

The crime of undue inducement to give or promise utility is perfected even if the event does not occur due to the resistance offered by the private individual to the illicit pressures of the public agent.

Analysis of Grounds for Appeal

The defendants presented several grounds for appeal, including the alleged non-configurability of the crime in its attempted form, the violation of procedural rules, and the lack of reasoning by the Court of Appeal. However, the Cassation deemed these arguments unfounded, reiterating that the crime of extortion does not necessarily require the acceptance of the illicit proposal by the victim.

• The Court confirmed that the crime is constituted even in the absence of acceptance, provided that there has been an inducement by the public official.
• It was highlighted that attempted extortion is possible even if the private individual resists the pressures exerted.
• The responsibility of the defendants was also confirmed on the basis of their position as public officials and the context in which the inspection took place.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 62 of 2018 of the Court of Cassation offers an important point of reflection on the issue of the responsibility of public officials and the application of the rules relating to extortion. It emphasizes the need to protect the freedom of self-determination of private individuals, especially in contexts where there is a clear imbalance of power. For legal professionals, it is essential to understand the implications of this judgment, both in legal advice and in the defense of similar cases.