Theft of a Lost Phone: What the Supreme Court Established in Ruling No. 15903/2025

The Fifth Criminal Section of the Supreme Court of Cassation, with ruling 15903 filed on April 24, 2025, rejected the appeal of K. J. B., confirming the conviction for theft of a mobile phone found on a public street. The ruling reaffirms a consolidated, though sometimes misunderstood, jurisprudential principle: if the lost item bears unequivocal signs of its owner, taking possession of it is equivalent to theft, not 'finding' it.

The Regulatory Framework

To understand the scope of the decision, it is necessary to recall two key provisions:

• Article 624 of the Italian Criminal Code – Theft: punishes whoever takes possession of another's movable property by removing it from whoever holds it.
• Article 647 of the Italian Criminal Code – Appropriation of Lost Property: a case decriminalized by Legislative Decree 7/2016, now unlawful only in civil proceedings with a monetary penalty.

By decriminalizing Article 647 of the Criminal Code, the legislator intended to lighten the criminal system, but did not affect the scope of theft. The interpretative crux therefore concerns the boundary line between the two conducts.

The Reasoning of the Court of Cassation

The act of taking possession of another's mobile phone that has been lost constitutes the crime of theft and not that of appropriation of lost property, decriminalized by Legislative Decree of January 15, 2016, no. 7. This is because such an item, even when lost, retains clear signs of its legitimate ownership, particularly the IMEI code printed inside the battery compartment of the device. The Court highlights that a mobile phone, unlike an object without any identifying marks, bears a unique code (IMEI) that allows for easy tracing of the owner. Whoever appropriates it, even if aware of its origin, establishes a 'contact with the item' equivalent to theft, as they consciously disregard these signs. Consequently, theft is established, with all its criminal penalties.

The judges, citing consistent precedents (Cass. nn. 40327/2011, 46991/2013, 1710/2017), reiterated that the technological device retains a 'trace of ownership' that makes its foreign origin evident and, therefore, the unjust detention by the new possessor. It is irrelevant that the owner has physically lost the phone: the 'disappearance' does not erase their ownership title.

Practical Implications for Citizens and Defense Lawyers

The ruling offers useful insights for both potential 'finders' of objects and lawyers dealing with property crimes:

• Finding does not mean being able to keep: the item must be handed over to the authorities or returned to the owner, under penalty of theft.
• Electronic devices, thanks to their identification codes, will always be considered carriers of 'distinguishing marks'.
• The defense cannot invoke the decriminalization of Article 647 of the Criminal Code when there are unequivocal elements of another's ownership.
• In the event of an investigation, it is crucial to demonstrate an excusable ignorance of the signs of ownership, a burden that is often difficult to meet.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 15903/2025 reinforces a strict interpretation of Article 624 of the Criminal Code: the protection of personal property prevails over the need for criminal simplification introduced by Legislative Decree 7/2016. Whoever finds a lost mobile phone is not 'lucky,' but a custodian of someone else's property; appropriating it means committing theft, with a penalty ranging from six months to three years (barring aggravating circumstances). The message is clear: technology, far from causing confusion, makes it easier to identify the legitimate owner, and the law does not allow for shortcuts.