Wiretaps and Connected Crimes: Cassation Ruling no. 18392/2025 Clarifies Limits of Usability

Wiretaps are a powerful investigative tool, but their usability in criminal proceedings is often debated. The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 18392, filed on May 15, 2025, has provided essential clarification on the use of interceptions ordered for one crime in different proceedings, but for connected crimes. This ruling is crucial for the application of Articles 266 and 270 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Essential Regulatory Framework

The use of wiretaps is strictly regulated. Article 266 of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines the limits of admissibility (which crimes), while Article 270 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs usability in different proceedings. An exception is provided for "connected crimes" (Art. 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), provided they fall within the limits of Art. 266 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The ruling, although preceding the 2019 reform, consolidates fundamental interpretative principles.

Ruling 18392/2025: The Fundamental Principle

The Supreme Court, in the case concerning Mr. A. C., established the following principle:

In the context of wiretaps, the prohibition of usability pursuant to Art. 270 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding interceptions carried out in proceedings other than those for which they were authorized does not apply to outcomes relating solely to connected crimes, pursuant to Art. 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for which the authorization was granted "ab origine", provided they fall within the admissibility limits set forth in Art. 266 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the prerequisites for ordering the means of proof existed at the time of the judge's authorization, regardless of the outcomes of that proceeding, even if acquittals. (Case that occurred prior to the 2019 reform on wiretaps, in which a judgment of acquittal had already been issued in the first instance due to the preclusion of the prohibition of "bis in idem" regarding the crime for which the interception activity was ordered).

The core of the decision is clear: wiretaps legitimately authorized for one crime can be used for "connected" crimes if the initial authorization complied with Art. 266 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. What matters is the validity of the prerequisites at the time of the judge's authorization. The outcome of the original proceeding, even an acquittal for bis in idem (prohibition of double jeopardy, Art. 649 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) as in the case of A. C., does not invalidate the usability of the evidence for connected crimes. The lawfulness of the evidence is rooted in its correct acquisition, not in subsequent procedural events.

Practical Implications and Safeguards

Ruling no. 18392/2025, by annulling with referral the decision of the Court of Appeal of Salerno, has important repercussions. It clarifies Art. 270 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, distinguishing the lawfulness of the authorization from the outcome of the original proceeding. This increases certainty regarding the usability of wiretaps for connected crimes, provided the initial prerequisites were valid. At the same time, it protects individual rights by reiterating the need to comply with Art. 266 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the time of authorization. The case of A. C. confirms that acquittal for bis in idem does not prejudice the use of evidence for connected facts, outlining a balance between investigative effectiveness and fundamental rights.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 18392/2025 of the Court of Cassation is a fundamental reference for wiretap regulations. It reiterates the centrality of the authorization moment and the need to scrupulously respect legal requirements, decoupling the usability of evidence for connected crimes from the outcomes of the original proceeding. This decision offers clear guidance for legal professionals, promoting greater legal certainty and operational effectiveness in criminal proceedings.