The case of false pretences: analysis of judgment Cass. pen., Sez. VI, no. 23602 of 2020

Judgment no. 23602 of 2020 by the Court of Cassation touches upon a crucial issue in Italian criminal law: false pretences. This crime, provided for by art. 346 of the Italian Criminal Code, refers to the conduct of those who, claiming connections with public officials, receive economic advantages in exchange for promises or illegal acts. The Court's decision offers food for thought on how corrupt practices should be qualified and punished.

The context of the case

The appellant, G.A., an accountant, had been convicted for having interceded with two members of the Guardia di Finanza to favour his client, T.F., in a tax audit. In exchange for 4,000 euros, the defendant had attempted to obtain a favour from the officers, thus constituting an instance of corruption. G.A. contested the legal qualification of his behaviour, arguing that it was a simple attempt at mediation and not corruption.

The Court reiterated that the crime of illicit influence peddling is not constituted when there is an established corrupt relationship between the public official and the private party.

The Court's reasoning

The Court rejected the first ground of appeal, clarifying that the qualification of the act as corruption was correct. According to art. 346 bis of the Italian Criminal Code, illicit influence peddling refers to those who exploit relationships with public officials to obtain advantages. However, in the specific case, a direct payment to public officials to favour an official act had been found, qualifying the conduct under the aspect of corruption.

• The payment of sums of money to public officials is a key element in the constitution of the crime of corruption.
• The distinction between illicit influence peddling and corruption is fundamental for the correct application of the law.
• The Court stressed the importance of a rigorous interpretation of criminal law provisions to prevent abuses.

The final decision and implications

The Court partially upheld the appeal, annulling the condition of payment of the sum of 4,000 euros as a requirement for the conditional suspension of the sentence. This aspect is significant as it highlights the need for a clear distinction between the responsibilities of the public official and the briber. The judgment clarifies that the law does not provide for the condition of payment for the private briber, which could have repercussions in future judicial decisions.

Conclusions

Judgment Cass. pen., Sez. VI, no. 23602 of 2020 represents an important step in Italian jurisprudence concerning false pretences and corruption. It highlights the need for careful analysis of illegal conduct and related responsibilities, as well as the distinction between influence peddling and corruption. The implications of this decision extend beyond the specific case, influencing the way public officials and private individuals interact in the context of operations involving the public and private spheres.