Analysis of Judgment Cass. pen., Sec. II, no. 38551 of 2019: the issue of usury

The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 38551 of 2019, dealt with a case of usury that raises fundamental questions regarding the definition and integration of this crime. The judgment offers important insights for lawyers and citizens, clarifying several aspects of the crime of usury and the methods for ascertaining the inductive conduct.

Context of the judgment

In the case in question, D.M.C. had been convicted of continuous usury, with the Court of Appeal of Milan confirming the first-instance decision. The defendant appealed, arguing that there had been no inductive conduct attributable to him, and that the usurious promise was inadequate, being represented by uncovered checks.

The crime of usury can also be consummated with a mere usurious promise, which highlights that, in such a case, the subsequent events of the inter partes relationship do not affect the configurability of the crime.

The Court's arguments

The Court deemed the appeal inadmissible, emphasizing that inductive conduct is not an essential element for the configuration of the crime of usury. In particular, the Court stated that it is not necessary for the initiative to establish the negotiation to have been taken by the usurer; what matters is the objective usurious nature of the agreed conditions. Furthermore, the distinction between usury and extortion was highlighted, clarifying that for the crime of usury, no pressure or intimidation is required, unlike extortion.

Principles of law affirmed

The judgment reiterated some important principles of law:

• Inductive conduct by the usurer is not necessary to constitute the crime of usury.
• The crime of usury can also be configured with a simple usurious promise.
• The distinction between usury and extortion is fundamental and must be clarified in court.

Furthermore, the Court held that the finding of responsibility was supported by sufficient evidence, including the statements of the victim, which were deemed reliable.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 38551 of 2019 represents an important reference point for jurisprudence on usury. It clarifies that the mere acceptance of usurious conditions by the victim does not exclude the configurability of the crime, further emphasizing the importance of protecting vulnerable individuals in difficult financial situations. This judgment, therefore, not only offers a legal interpretation but also serves as a warning to those in economic difficulty, highlighting the need to pay attention to the loan conditions offered.