Configurability of the crime of fraud according to judgment no. 45599 of 2024

Judgment no. 45599 of October 30, 2024, by the Court of Cassation represents an important reference point for understanding the crime of fraud, particularly regarding the relationship between the person misled and the person who suffers financial damage. This ruling clarifies that the identity between these two figures is not necessary, but the existence of a causal link is fundamental.

Context of the judgment

The case examined by the Court concerned the defendant S. C., who had purchased a property under a subsidized housing scheme, misleading the selling company about possessing the necessary requirements to enter into the contract. This behavior caused damage to the municipality, which lost out on construction charges.

The Court therefore reiterated that, for the crime of fraud to be established, it is sufficient to demonstrate a causal link between the deception, the profit obtained by the defendant, and the damage suffered by the victim. This principle is highly relevant as it broadens the scope of application of the crime of fraud, allowing fraudulent conduct to be punished even in the absence of direct contact between the fraudster and the victim.

The ruling's maxim

Fraud - Difference between the person misled and the person who suffered financial damage - Configurability. For the crime of fraud to be established, the identity between the person misled and the person who suffered financial damage is not necessary, provided that, even in the absence of direct contact between the fraudster and the victim, there is a causal link between the deception, the profit, and the damage. (Case in which the defendant had purchased a property under a subsidized housing scheme, misleading the selling company about possessing the requirements to enter into the contract, thereby causing damage to the municipality due to uncollected construction charges).

This maxim offers a clear interpretation of the crime of fraud, highlighting how the essential element is not so much the direct relationship between the parties involved, but rather the demonstration of a genuine deception that led to economic damage. With this judgment, the Court follows a jurisprudential path already laid out by previous decisions, consolidating an approach that ensures greater protection for victims of fraud.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 45599 of 2024 represents an important piece in the fight against financial fraud and scams. Its interpretation of the crime of fraud allows responsibility to be extended to deceptive conduct even when there is no direct contact between the perpetrator and the victim. This approach not only strengthens the legal protection of victims but also offers more effective tools for prosecuting those responsible for fraudulent acts. It is therefore crucial that both legal professionals and citizens are aware of these provisions to protect their rights.