Improper Robbery at a Petrol Station: The Court of Cassation Clarifies with Ruling No. 16931 of 2025

The Italian legal landscape is constantly evolving, and jurisprudence, particularly that of the Court of Cassation, plays a fundamental role in defining and clarifying the boundaries of different criminal offenses. A recent ruling, Ruling No. 16931 of 07/03/2025 (filed on 06/05/2025), dealt with a seemingly simple case with significant implications: leaving a petrol station without paying, followed by threats to the attendant. This decision, presided over by Dr. L. I. and drafted by Dr. M. P., offers important insights into the configuration of improper robbery.

The Specific Case and the Legal Issue

The case concerned the defendant S. V., who, after filling up his car with fuel at a petrol station with the assistance of the attendant, drove away without paying the due price. The conduct, however, was not limited to the mere taking of the goods but was accompanied by threats directed at the employee. The Court of Appeal of Palermo had rejected the request, and the matter reached the Supreme Court, which was called upon to determine whether such behavior constituted the crime of improper robbery.

The core of the issue lies in the distinction between the crime of theft (Art. 624 of the Italian Criminal Code) and improper robbery (Art. 628, paragraph 2, of the Italian Criminal Code). While theft consists of the unlawful taking of another's movable property with the intent to profit from it, improper robbery occurs when, in order to secure possession of the stolen goods for oneself or others, or to procure impunity for oneself or others, violence or threats are used immediately after the taking.

The conduct of someone who, after filling up with fuel at a petrol station with the assistance of the dispensing attendant, drives away without paying and threatens the latter, constitutes the crime of improper robbery, given that the taking, being a free-form conduct, can occur as a result of a seemingly legitimate purchase offer, but one vitiated by a mental reservation, and be followed, subsequently, by the use of threats or violence, aimed at consolidating possession of the stolen goods.

This maxim is of fundamental importance because it clarifies that the taking does not necessarily have to occur with clandestine or violent methods from the outset. The Court highlights that the taking is a "free-form conduct," meaning it can also manifest itself in an initially legitimate context, such as a purchase offer. However, if this offer is "vitiated by a mental reservation" – meaning, from the beginning, there is no intention to pay – and subsequently, to consolidate possession of the goods (the fuel, in this case), threats or violence are resorted to, then improper robbery is constituted. The threat, in this scenario, is not a means to take, but to retain possession of what has already been taken.

The Crucial Distinction and Jurisprudential Precedents

The Supreme Court, Second Criminal Section, rejected the defendant's appeal, upholding the conviction for improper robbery. This decision aligns with a consolidated jurisprudential trend, as evidenced by previous rulings (e.g., No. 5435 of 2019 and No. 3018 of 2020), which have already addressed similar cases. It is interesting to note that the ruling also refers to "Conflicting Previous Maxims," such as No. 18039 of 2014, indicating an interpretative evolution that has helped clarify the contours of this complex criminal offense.

The key elements for the configuration of improper robbery, according to the Court of Cassation, are:

• An initial taking of the goods, even if carried out through seemingly legitimate means.
• The lack of intention to pay from the moment of the "purchase offer" (the "mental reservation").
• The use of violence or threats immediately after the taking.
• The purpose of the violence or threat: to secure possession of the stolen goods or impunity.

In the case of refueling, the taking is perfected at the moment the fuel is dispensed and taken, with the intention of not paying. The subsequent threats to the attendant, aimed at preventing them from recovering the goods or identifying the perpetrator, transform simple theft into improper robbery, a crime of much greater gravity.

Conclusions: A Warning for the Protection of Commerce

Ruling No. 16931 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important warning for anyone attempting to unlawfully appropriate others' property, especially in commercial contexts such as petrol stations. It strengthens the protection of property and the safety of business owners, clearly outlining that aggressive or intimidating conduct, even if carried out at a later stage than the taking, will not be tolerated and will be classified as improper robbery, with the corresponding and more severe criminal consequences provided for by Article 628, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code. This is a fundamental principle that underscores the importance of legality and adherence to rules in the context of everyday commercial transactions.