• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Judgment No. 36951 of 2024: Reflections on Extortion and the Limits of Public Official Responsibility

The judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 36951 of 2024 provides an important insight into the crime of extortion and the boundaries of public officials' responsibility. The Court, ruling on a case of attempted and completed extortion, annulled the conviction of a chosen officer of the Carabinieri, considering that his conduct could not be classified as coercive abuse.

The Specific Case and the Conduct of the Public Official

The appellant, A.A., had been accused of pressuring the parents of minors suspected of having damaged his car, asking them to contribute to the repair costs. The defense argued that there had been no psychological coercion, as the request was not accompanied by threats or intimidation.

  • The Court noted that A.A.'s conduct was limited to a generic pressure.
  • No abuse of power or of the quality of the public official emerged.
  • The claim for compensation, although debatable from a civil standpoint, was not criminally relevant.
The crime of extortion cannot be configured when the conduct of the public agent results in mere conditioning.

The Legal Criteria Underpinning the Judgment

The Court reiterated that the crime of extortion requires an abusive conduct that significantly affects the freedom of self-determination of the recipient. This interpretation is based on established legal principles and previous case law, which distinguishes between extortion and undue influence.

In particular, the distinction is based on:

  • Coercive abuse: use of a position of superiority to force the private individual to take a specific action.
  • Undue influence: persuasion or suggestion without coercion.

The judges highlighted that, for the crime of extortion to be configured, the pressure exerted by the public official must not leave room for the recipient's freedom of choice, a condition that did not occur in A.A.'s case.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 36951 of 2024 represents an important reflection on the need to balance the prerogatives of public officials with the protection of individual freedom. The Court has demonstrated that not every request for compensation, even if made by a public official, can automatically be considered an attempt at extortion. This principle reinforces the importance of self-determination and the need to establish clear boundaries between lawful and unlawful conduct in the interactions between public officials and citizens.