Plea Bargaining and Accessory Penalties in Crimes Against Public Administration: Analysis of Cass. pen. no. 12309/2024
The plea bargaining order represents one of the decisive junctures of Italian criminal justice: it allows for the conclusion of proceedings with an agreed-upon penalty, reducing time and costs. But what happens when the defendant, accused of a crime against the Public Administration, makes the agreement conditional on exemption from accessory penalties? The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 12309 filed on March 28, 2025, addresses precisely this delicate issue, offering a clarification destined to impact defense strategies and the work of lower courts.
The Regulatory Framework
Two are the key provisions referred to by the ruling:
- Article 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs plea bargaining, providing in paragraph 3-bis the possibility of making the request for a penalty conditional on the exclusion of accessory penalties;
- Article 317-bis of the Criminal Code, which mandates the compulsory application of specific accessory penalties (disqualification from public office, inability to contract with the Public Administration, etc.) for crimes against the Public Administration.
The tension between the two provisions is evident: the faculty to agree on exemption clashes with a legislative regime that, for reasons of public interest protection, makes accessory penalties unavoidable.
The Principles Affirmed by the Court
In matters of plea bargaining, the judge, called upon to decide on a request for a custodial sentence agreed upon not exceeding two years of imprisonment for one of the crimes against public administration indicated in art. 317-bis of the Criminal Code, where the request has been made conditional, pursuant to art. 444, paragraph 3-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on exemption from accessory penalties, cannot consider the condition as not having been imposed and ratify the agreement in the remaining part, imposing, "ex officio," said penalties, but is required to reject the agreement in its entirety.
The clear maxim requires the judge not to "save" the agreement by simply applying accessory penalties ex officio. In the presence of an unacceptable condition – the exclusion of accessory sanctions – the entire agreement must be rejected. This leads to:
- Impossibility of splitting the agreement: the pact is an indivisible whole;
- Necessity of resuming adversarial proceedings: the parties may reformulate a new agreement or opt for ordinary proceedings;
- Centrality of contractual will: the judge cannot substitute themselves for the parties by altering the agreed-upon balance.
Continuity and Jurisprudential Innovation
The decision follows the path laid out by the United Sections no. 23400/2022, which had already highlighted the intangibility of the plea bargaining agreement unless both parties consent. Compared to the previous Section VI no. 14238/2023, the ruling under comment reinforces the principle of the typicality of conditions: those incompatible with the law lead to rejection, not unilateral modification.
Furthermore, the reference to Law 9/2019 (the so-called "anti-corruption sweep") should be noted, which has stiffened the system of accessory penalties for corruption offenses, strengthening the punitive and preventive rationale underlying Article 317-bis of the Criminal Code.
Practical Implications for Defense Counsel and Defendants
The ruling warns defense counsel to carefully evaluate the conditions to be attached to the plea bargaining request. Including exemption from accessory penalties risks backfiring, leading to the rejection of the agreement and the prolongation of the proceedings. A prudent approach could consist of:
- Negotiating a more favorable custodial sentence by renouncing illegitimate conditions;
- Considering alternative special proceedings (e.g., abbreviated trial) when accessory penalties are unavoidable;
- Having recourse to post-verdict requests (e.g., rehabilitation) to mitigate accessory effects.
Conclusions
Cassation no. 12309/2024 reiterates that plea bargaining is a "package" agreement: it is either accepted in its entirety or must be rejected. In the delicate balance between procedural efficiency and the protection of the integrity of the Public Administration, the Court favors the latter, decreeing the non-waivability of accessory penalties under art. 317-bis of the Criminal Code. A stance that strengthens the zero-tolerance approach to corruption and calls for defense counsel and defendants to more rigorously formulate settlement proposals.
