Fraud and Improper Perception of Public Grants: The Very Recent Ruling of the Court of Cassation
The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation (Cass. pen., Sez. VI, Sent., n. 16979 of 23/04/2024) offers significant points of reflection on the issue of fraud related to public grants, particularly those intended to support businesses during the health emergency. The decision found that the aggravating factor of aggravated fraud did not apply to A.A., the administrator of a company that received non-repayable contributions, clarifying the lines of demarcation between the crimes of fraud and improper perception of public grants.
The Case Under Review
The Court of Naples had upheld the application of house arrest against A.A., accusing him of the improper perception of public contributions, based on Article 316-ter of the Penal Code. However, the Public Prosecutor argued that A.A.'s conduct should be classified as aggravated fraud under Article 640-bis of the Penal Code, as it was alleged that tricks were used to deceive the Revenue Agency.
- The first controversial point concerns the qualification of the crime: fraud or improper perception?
- The second point relates to the precautionary measure applied, in relation to the maximum penalty provided for the contested crime.
- Finally, the third point concerns the aggravating factor related to the financial interests of the European Union.
The Court clarified that the improper perception of public contributions does not automatically constitute the crime of aggravated fraud, unless specific elements of deception of the granting entity are present.
The Decisions of the Court of Cassation
The Court accepted A.A.'s appeal, declaring the Public Prosecutor's appeal inadmissible. In particular, the Court emphasized that A.A.'s conduct is correctly framed within the realm of improper perception of public grants, as the Revenue Agency, according to current regulations, does not carry out a preventive check on the self-certification of the applicant.
Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the aggravating factor related to the financial interests of the European Union could not be applied in this specific case, as the contributions received do not harm the assets of the Union, but only those of the Italian State.
Conclusions
This ruling of the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification in the context of public grants and related criminal responsibilities. The distinction between improper perception and aggravated fraud is fundamental to understanding the scope of current regulations and the legal consequences for businesses. It is crucial for companies to understand the risks associated with false statements, but the ruling reminds us that the application of the rules must be carried out rigorously and without analogical extensions that could unjustly harm the individual.
