Burglary with Work Keys: The Court of Cassation Rules with Judgment No. 11744/2025

Imagine entrusting the keys to your home to a trusted person for work reasons: a domestic helper, a maintenance worker, a professional. What happens if that trust is betrayed and the access, initially legitimate, turns into an opportunity to commit theft? This issue, far from being rare, has been the subject of an important ruling by the Court of Cassation, judgment no. 11744 of 2025 (filed 03/25/2025), which has clarified the boundaries of the crime of burglary (Art. 624 bis of the Italian Criminal Code) in these specific circumstances.

The Al. Ma. Case: Abuse of Professional Trust

The case that led to the Supreme Court's decision concerned the defendant Al. Ma., who was in possession of the keys to a property for work reasons. Instead of using this access to perform the agreed-upon tasks, the woman entered the home with the specific intent to commit theft. The Court of Appeal of Naples had already rejected her appeal, and the Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 11744/2025, confirmed this approach, reiterating a cornerstone principle of criminal law.

The conduct of an agent who, in possession of the keys to a property for work reasons, enters it not to perform the activity for which access was granted, but with the aim of committing theft, constitutes the crime of burglary.

This maxim is at the heart of the decision. In simple terms, the Court of Cassation clarifies that legitimate possession of keys is not sufficient to exclude the crime of burglary if the entry occurs with the pre-arranged purpose of stealing. What matters is the agent's intent: if access is instrumental to a theft, the act fully constitutes the aggravated crime, as a situation of trust is abused and the privacy of the home is violated.

Burglary: Protection of the Home and Specific Intent

The crime of burglary, governed by Article 624 bis of the Italian Criminal Code, is an aggravated form of simple theft (Art. 624 of the Italian Criminal Code). The law intends to protect not only property but also the inviolability of the home and domestic peace. Judgment no. 11744/2025 highlights how this protection also extends to cases where access occurs through apparently legitimate means, but with fraudulent intent. Therefore, it is not a simple theft, but an action that deeply harms the victim by abusing a relationship or an advantageous situation.

In particular, the Court reiterated that:

• Possession of keys, even if initially lawful for professional reasons, does not legitimize entry for the purpose of theft.
• The distinguishing element is specific intent, i.e., the pre-arranged intention to commit theft, which distorts the original consent to access.
• The conduct constitutes the aggravated form of burglary precisely because of the violation of trust and the privacy of the home.

This principle is constantly affirmed by jurisprudence, as demonstrated by the precedents cited by the Court of Cassation itself (e.g., judgments no. 16995 of 2020, no. 3716 of 2023, and no. 19982 of 2019), proving a consolidated and coherent orientation.

Conclusions: A Warning for Home Protection

Judgment no. 11744 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a firm point in jurisprudence regarding burglary. It strongly reiterates that criminal intent prevails over the method of access, even when the latter appears initially legitimate. It is a clear warning to those who might abuse a position of trust and, at the same time, a reassurance to citizens: the law rigorously protects one's home and domestic peace, severely punishing those who violate its boundaries for illicit purposes. For legal assistance on these matters, it is essential to consult professionals experienced in criminal law.