Extortion and Aiding and Abetting: Analysis of Judgment No. 17918 of 2023

The recent judgment No. 17918 of 2023 by the Court of Cassation offers significant insights into the concept of extortion, particularly concerning aiding and abetting and the liability of those acting without subjective qualification. This article will explore the legal implications of this ruling, analyzing the meaning of the maxim and the Italian regulatory context.

Context of the Judgment

The Court of Cassation, in its decision, addressed the issue of aiding and abetting in the crime of extortion, establishing that even a subject lacking subjective qualification can be held liable, provided that their conduct contributes to creating a state of coercion or subjection in the victim. This interpretation fits within a complex regulatory framework, founded on Article 110 of the Penal Code, concerning aiding and abetting in criminal offenses.

The Maxim of the Judgment

Aiding and Abetting - Typical action carried out by an "extraneus" - Possibility - Conditions. In matters of extortion, the typical action can also be carried out by a co-perpetrator lacking subjective qualification, provided that such person, in agreement with the holder of the public position, engages in conduct that contributes to creating in the passive subject the state of coercion or subjection functional to an act of patrimonial disposition, and that the victim is aware that the benefit is requested and desired by the public official.

This maxim highlights two fundamental conditions: the first concerns the conduct of the co-perpetrator, which must align with the public official's intent; the second concerns the victim's awareness regarding the request for a benefit. These elements are crucial for establishing criminal liability, clarifying that even those who do not hold an official position can actively participate in the crime.

Legal and Regulatory Implications

The implications of this ruling are manifold and require further examination. In particular, it can be observed how the judgment gives significant weight to the relational dynamic between the public official and external subjects. It is interesting to note that, by analogy with other previous rulings, such as No. 21192 of 2013, the Court continues to reaffirm the importance of mutual awareness and intent between the parties involved in an act of extortion.

• Recognition of liability even for those who are not public officials.
• Necessity of an agreement between the public official and the extraneus.
• Victim's awareness regarding the request for a benefit.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 17918 of 2023 represents a step forward in the legal understanding of extortion and aiding and abetting. It clarifies that criminal liability is not limited to public officials alone but can also extend to those who, despite lacking official qualification, actively collaborate in the commission of the crime. This principle is part of a regulatory framework aimed at ensuring greater accountability and transparency in the relationships between citizens and public administration.