Card bombs and danger thresholds: the Court of Cassation clarifies with ruling no. 13831/2025
The First Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation, with decision no. 13831 of January 7, 2025 (filed April 9, 2025), returns to address the delicate matter of card bombs, annulling with referral the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Bari. The panel chaired by V. S. confirms a now constant orientation, but introduces useful clarifications for legal operators, law enforcement agencies, and common users.
The regulatory context
The legislator distinguishes between two different criminal offenses:
- Art. 679 of the Italian Criminal Code (c.p.): misdemeanor for possession of explosive materials without prior notification;
- Art. 2 of Law no. 895/1967: felony for illegal possession of explosive devices, punished much more severely.
The consequences vary significantly: optional arrest and a short statute of limitations for the misdemeanor contrast with prison sentences of up to six years for the special felony and a basic statute of limitations of ten years (Art. 157 c.p.).
The ruling and its meaning
A "card bomb" characterized by a limited explosive charge is included among explosive materials, so its possession not preceded by notification to the authorities constitutes the misdemeanor referred to in Art. 679 of the Criminal Code, while one that, due to the nature and quantity of the charge and the packaging methods, has the capacity to cause a significant destructive effect, is considered an explosive device, the possession of which is punished under Art. 2 of Law no. 895 of October 2, 1967.
In simple terms, the Court tells us that not all card bombs are the same: if the charge is modest, the offense remains a misdemeanor; if, however, the power is such as to generate a serious destructive effect – for example, fragments projected at a distance or shockwaves capable of demolishing structures – the felony provided for by the special weapons law applies.
The facts and reasons for the decision
The defendant N. D. had been convicted of the felony under Art. 2 of Law no. 895/1967. In his appeal, the defense argued that the seized device was comparable to enhanced fireworks, not a true explosive device. The Court of Cassation identified an investigative gap: the Court of Appeal had not ascertained, through expert opinions or objective criteria, the concrete destructive capacity of the artifact. Hence the annulment with referral, so that the trial court may conduct an in-depth technical examination.
Practical implications for operators and citizens
The ruling requires a rigorous technical assessment before charging the special felony. The elements to consider include:
- weight and composition of the explosive mixture;
- ignition method and presence of a rigid casing that projects fragments;
- proof of destructive effect in a controlled environment.
Consequently, the defense may request ballistic or chemical expert opinions to demonstrate the lesser offensiveness of the object and obtain its reclassification under the milder Art. 679 c.p.
On a preventive level, pyrotechnic article manufacturers must monitor the power limits imposed by Legislative Decree 123/2015 (implementation of Directive 2013/29/EU) to prevent the product from slipping into the category of "explosive devices."
Conclusions
The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 13831/2025, reiterates that the dividing line between misdemeanor and felony is not formal but substantial: the concrete dangerousness of the device matters. The ruling serves as a warning for accurate investigations and offers criminal defense lawyers a valuable defensive tool, based on technical parameters that the trial judge must obligatorily evaluate. Pending the new judgment of the Court of Appeal, the orientation confirms the need to balance public safety and the principle of offensiveness.
