Criminal Cassation No. 14838/2024: When Online "Open Sources" Become Unusable as Evidence

With ruling No. 14838 of December 16, 2024 (filed April 15, 2025), the Sixth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation addresses the vexata quaestio of the evidentiary usability of information found on the web. The case arose from the appeal of F. R. S., convicted on appeal by the Court of Assizes of Reggio Calabria, who argued – among other grounds – the allegedly illegitimate use of news taken from unidentified websites. The Supreme Court, partially annulling with referral, offers valuable guidance for those who deal daily with digital evidence and open-source intelligence (OSINT).

The Core of the Decision

The judges of legitimacy refer to Articles 187 and 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which govern the object of proof and the use of statements. The decisive point is the traceability of the source: without a clear reference to its origin and reliability, online news degrades to a "common rumor" devoid of procedural value. The Court follows precedents such as Cass. 46482/2023 and 21310/2022, but reinforces the principle with an explicit reference to the risks of cognitive contamination of the criminal proceedings.

Indefinite "open sources," i.e., news devoid of any reference to their origin, obtainable from the internet, are unusable for evidentiary purposes, as otherwise, there would be a risk of allowing generic information to pass into the proceedings, in violation of the provisions of Articles 187 and 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, falling, "lato sensu," within the scope of "common rumors" and personal opinions. (In its reasoning, the Court specified that, on the other hand, "open sources" accessible via the internet, whose origin is clearly identifiable, such as institutional documents, price lists, stock market values, currency exchange rates, road distances, known and undisputed events, etc., are usable – as they can be attributed to the concept of "notorious fact," expanded by information technologies).

Comment: the ruling establishes a dual principle. On one hand, it protects the reliability of evidentiary material, preventing mere online rumors from influencing judicial decisions; on the other hand, it allows the admission of objective and verifiable data (e.g., official price lists, institutional reports), expanding the notion of "notorious fact" in light of technological evolution. The Court thus balances the needs of procedural efficiency with guarantees of reliability.

Open Sources and Notorious Facts: Where the Line is Drawn

The distinction drawn by the Court of Cassation can be summarized as follows:

• Qualified Open Sources: institutional websites, Borsa Italiana, government agencies, EU databases. They are equated to notorious facts because they are easily verifiable by anyone.
• Indefinite Open Sources: anonymous blogs, forums, social networks without identity verification. Here, the risk of manipulation prevails, and therefore, their inadmissibility.

The dividing line requires the defense and prosecution to precisely document the URL, date of access, author, and any time certification (Art. 254-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure). In the absence of these safeguards, the judge must declare the evidence irregular.

Practical Implications for Defense Counsel and Public Prosecutors

The burden of proving the qualification of the source rests on the party introducing it into the proceedings. This entails:

• the need for forensic preservation of digital data (hash, chain of custody);
• the use of IT expert reports attesting to the immutability of the content;
• attention to the aspects of evidence formation during the trial, avoiding confusion between documents under Art. 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and simple web printouts.

At the European level, it is recalled that the eIDAS Regulation and the NIS 2 Directive push towards high standards of security and authenticity of digital information, reinforcing the rationale of the Italian decision.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 14838/2024 represents a decisive piece in the puzzle of digital evidence. It embraces technological innovation without sacrificing the reliability guarantees of criminal proceedings, presenting professionals and operators with a crossroads: adopt robust digital forensics procedures or forgo potentially decisive evidence. In an era of information overload, the Court reminds us that not everything that is online can cross the threshold of the courtroom.