Analysis of Judgment No. 44734 of 2024: Ideological Falsehood and Special Power of Attorney

Judgment No. 44734 of October 3, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers significant insights into the issue of ideological falsehood in public acts, particularly concerning the special power of attorney to sell. This case is emblematic for understanding the legal dynamics involving public officials' attestations and their impact on the validity of notarial acts.

The Case and the Judgment

In this specific case, the defendant, A. L., was accused of presenting a false power of attorney to act as a special attorney for a seller in a real estate transaction. The Court ruled that the agent's conduct constitutes the crime of ideological falsehood in public acts that are evidentiary by inducing the public official. This means that, based on a falsely drawn-up power of attorney, the agent managed to induce the notary to proceed with the sale, believing in the legitimacy of their representation.

False special power of attorney to sell - Presentation during the notarial deed - Crime of ideological falsehood in public acts that are evidentiary by inducing the public official - Existence - Crime of false attestation or declaration relating to identity or personal qualities - Exclusion - Reasons. In the context of false crimes, the conduct of an agent who, based on a falsely drawn-up power of attorney, presents themselves as the special attorney for the owner of a property to be sold, thereby inducing the notary to register the relevant sale on the assumption of the real existence of the power of representation, constitutes the crime of ideological falsehood in public acts that are evidentiary by inducing the public official, and not the crime of false attestation or declaration relating to identity or personal qualities. (In its reasoning, the Court highlighted that the undisputed falsehood of the power of attorney, an act having evidentiary effect, is transferred to the attestation emanating from the notary who, by acknowledging the existence of the power of attorney to sell, independently attests to the existence of a fact in reality that does not correspond to the truth).

Legal Implications

This judgment clarifies that, in the case of a falsified power of attorney, the crime is considered ideological falsehood, excluding the crime of false attestation or declaration relating to identity or personal qualities. The reasons for this distinction are crucial for understanding the legal responsibilities of those who use false documents to obtain illicit advantages. When a public official, such as a notary, attests to the truthfulness of an act based on a false power of attorney, they themselves commit an act of ideological falsehood, as their attestation is based on a fact that does not correspond to reality.

• Importance of verifying the validity of the power of attorney.
• Responsibility of the notary and other public officials.
• Criminal consequences for the use of false documents.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 44734 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in jurisprudence concerning false crimes. It emphasizes the need for rigorous control over the truthfulness of notarial acts and the effectiveness of powers of attorney, highlighting that responsibility falls not only on the agent who falsified the document but also on those who, as public officials, attest to the truthfulness of such acts. Awareness of these dynamics is fundamental for both industry professionals and ordinary citizens, in order to protect public trust and the correctness of legal transactions.