Aggravated Fraud for Public Grants: Commentary on Judgment No. 13573/2024

The recent judgment No. 13573 of February 2, 2024, filed on April 3, 2024, provides important insights into the issue of aggravated fraud for obtaining public grants. In particular, the Court addressed the conduct of a defendant, A. R., accused of registering false invoices related to the simulated transfer of e-books to the beneficiaries of the 'cultural bonus'. This ruling, which rejects the appeal filed, deserves a thorough analysis to understand the legal and practical implications of the decision.

The Context of the Judgment

The conduct of A. R. is part of a context of fraudulent use of public support tools, in this case, the 'cultural bonus', designed to encourage the purchase of books and cultural products by young people. The Court established that the defendant's conduct constitutes the crime of aggravated fraud as per Article 640-bis of the Penal Code, rather than the undue receipt of public grants as provided by Article 316-ter of the same code. This aspect is fundamental, as it clearly distinguishes the two types of offenses.

Crime of aggravated fraud for obtaining public grants - Simulated transfer of e-books to holders of "cultural bonus" - Configurability of the offense - Reasons. The conduct of a person who registers false invoices on the appropriate digital platform related to the simulated transfer of digital books to the beneficiaries of the "cultural bonus", to whom goods of a different nature were actually delivered, constitutes the crime of aggravated fraud for obtaining public grants, as per Article 640-bis of the Penal Code, and not the undue receipt of public grants as per Article 316-ter of the Penal Code, given the premeditated fraudulent activity concretely carried out.

The Distinction Between Crimes

The judgment clarifies that for the configurability of the crime of aggravated fraud, it is necessary to demonstrate the existence of a premeditated fraudulent activity. This implies that the defendant acted with the intent to deceive the public administration and unlawfully obtain an economic advantage. In contrast, the crime of undue receipt of public grants is based on the conduct of receiving funds without complying with the stipulated conditions. In this case, the Court highlighted that the registration of false invoices for goods different from those actually delivered is a clear manifestation of fraudulent intent, thus configuring the crime of aggravated fraud.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 13573/2024 represents an important precedent in the fight against fraud affecting public grants. The distinction between aggravated fraud and undue receipt of public grants is crucial for the correct application of the law and for the prevention of fraudulent behavior. It is essential that legal professionals pay attention to these dynamics to ensure fair and effective justice. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, and rulings like this provide valuable insights for the future.

Bianucci Law Firm