The Deception and the Omissive Dispositive Act: Analysis of Cassation Ruling No. 20249 of 2025

Criminal law is constantly evolving, and rulings by the Supreme Court of Cassation often chart new interpretative directions that profoundly influence the application of norms. A striking example is offered by the recent Ruling No. 20249 of 06/05/2025, filed on 30/05/2025, which addresses a particularly delicate aspect of the crime of deception (art. 640 of the Italian Criminal Code): the possibility that the act of financial disposition, an essential element for the crime to be established, may consist of a purely omissive conduct. This decision, annulling in part without referral a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal of Turin, offers fundamental food for thought for lawyers, magistrates, and, more generally, for anyone wishing to understand the nuances of protection against property crimes.

The Context of the Decision: Mr. D. R.'s Case

The judicial case that led to the Cassation ruling involved Mr. A. D. R. as the defendant, implicated in proceedings for property crimes. The Court of Appeal of Turin had issued a ruling on 01/10/2024, which was subsequently appealed. The core of the issue revolved around the interpretation of the element of the "act of financial disposition" in the context of deception. Traditionally, there is a tendency to think of the act of disposition as a positive action (e.g., handing over money, signing a contract), but the Cassation Court, with this ruling, has clarified that even omissive conduct can have criminal relevance.

The Omissive Dispositive Act: A New Frontier for Deception

The ruling in question focuses on the nature of the act of financial disposition required by art. 640 of the Italian Criminal Code. The Supreme Court, presided over by Dr. A. P. and with Dr. P. C. as rapporteur, has established a principle of considerable importance, which deserves in-depth analysis. The maxim reads:

In matters of deception, the act of financial disposition required for the crime to be established may consist of purely omissive conduct, provided it causes an independent financial prejudice. (Case concerning the mere waiver, induced by deception by the defendant, to request the return of sums previously handed over to the aforementioned, not accompanied by further financial damage to the victim).

This principle revolutionizes, or rather, clarifies a grey area of legal interpretation. Until now, although legal scholarship and jurisprudence had already explored the possibility of deception through omission, ruling No. 20249 of 2025 defines its contours with greater precision. Mere inertia is not enough; it is necessary that the omission itself is the act by which the victim, misled by the deception of others, disposes of their assets, suffering damage. The key is causality: the omission must be the direct and immediate cause of the financial prejudice, and this prejudice must be independent, i.e., not merely consequential to an action already taken. The example provided by the maxim itself is illuminating: the waiver to request the return of sums already handed over, if induced by deception, constitutes an omissive act of disposition. The victim, deceived, omits to act to recover their money, and this omission is what causes them damage.

Conditions for the Relevance of Omission

The omission must be the direct effect of the error induced by the perpetrator.
It must be conduct capable of causing financial prejudice.
The financial prejudice resulting from the omission must be independent, not a mere consequence of a previous act of disposition.
The deception must have prevented the victim from taking an action that would have avoided financial damage.

Legal and Practical Implications

This interpretation extends the scope of art. 640 of the Italian Criminal Code, offering greater protection to victims of fraudulent conduct that manifests not only through positive actions but also through induced abstentions or inertia. For legal professionals, the ruling underscores the importance of carefully analyzing the causal link between the deception, the victim's error, and the act of disposition (even if omissive), as well as the consequent damage. This opens the door to new defensive and accusatory strategies, requiring greater attention to the reconstruction of the victim's will and their capacity for self-determination.

Previous jurisprudence, as referred to by the ruling itself (Rv. 242649-01, Rv. 283514-01, Rv. 287072-01, etc.), had already begun to outline this possibility, but the 2025 ruling crystallizes its requirements, providing clearer guidance. This is an important step in adapting legislation to modern criminal schemes, which are increasingly sophisticated and often aimed at manipulating victims' decisions through deception and disinformation.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 20249 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a fundamental reference point for understanding the crime of deception in Italy. By recognizing that even omissive conduct can constitute an act of financial disposition, provided it causes independent prejudice, the Supreme Court has strengthened the tools of protection against fraud, demonstrating the law's ability to adapt to the changing forms of criminality. It is essential for anyone dealing with issues related to deception to consider this jurisprudential evolution, which requires a careful and nuanced analysis of the dynamics leading to financial damage.

Адвокатське бюро Б'януччі

Ми постійно стежимо за змінами в законодавстві та судовій практиці, пропонуючи актуальний аналіз та інноваційні рішення. Ми ділимося розвитком права, щоб сприяти більш усвідомленій правовій культурі.

The Deception and the Omissive Dispositive Act: Analysis of Cassation Ruling No. 20249 of 2025

The Context of the Decision: Mr. D. R.'s Case

The Omissive Dispositive Act: A New Frontier for Deception

Conditions for the Relevance of Omission

Legal and Practical Implications

Conclusions

Адвокатське бюро Б'януччі

Останні статті

Військова юрисдикція у пекуляції: аналіз рішення №20317 від 2025 року

Європейський ордер на арешт та італійський вирок: рішення № 19696/2025 Касаційного суду

Домашнє насильство та неповнолітні: Рішення Касаційного суду № 20128/2025 переосмислює обтяжуючу обставину

Європейський ордер на арешт: Верховний касаційний суд щодо юрисдикції органу, що видав ордер (Рішення № 19671/2025)

Європейський ордер на арешт: Касаційний суд та важливість інформованої згоди (Cass. Pen. n. 19487/2025)

Адміністративне затримання іноземців: Рішення Касаційного суду № 18637 від 2025 року та судовий контроль

Продовження злочину та суддя з виконання вироку: ясність рішення Касаційного суду № 19390/2025

Адміністративне затримання та заява про притулок: обов'язок наводити доводи (постанова Верховного Суду № 18274 від 2025 року)

Компетенція судді з нагляду за виконанням покарань щодо застосування альтернативного домашнього арешту: Аналіз судового рішення № 18940/2025

Утримання іноземців в Албанії: Касаційний суд Італії роз’яснює питання щодо «побічного» утримання (рішення № 17510/2025)

Схожий контент

Категорії

Теги

Напишіть нам електронною поштою

Зателефонуйте нам

Бюро

Юридичні послуги

Команда

Контакти