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

Analysis of the Judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 17918 of 2023: The Case of Extortion

The ruling of the Court of Cassation No. 17918, issued on April 28, 2023, represents an important reference point for understanding the crime of extortion. The decision is based on a case where the defendant, A.A., was convicted of exerting pressure on business owners in connection with public officials of the Guardia di Finanza. Let us examine the main aspects of this ruling and its legal implications.

The Double Conformity and the Rationale of the Ruling

A central element of the ruling is the application of the principle of "double conformity," which occurs when the decisions of the first and second instance merge into a cohesive argument. The Court emphasized that a thorough examination of each argument is not necessary, but rather a global assessment of the evidence is sufficient. This principle is fundamental to ensuring the stability of legal decisions.

The judge in the appeal is not required to conduct an in-depth analysis of all the parties' deductions or to examine in detail all the procedural findings.

The Alleged Facts and the Defendant's Responsibility

In the case at hand, A.A. was accused of forcing two entrepreneurs to promise money and deliver goods by threatening inspections by the Guardia di Finanza. The Court confirmed that A.A.'s role was to "apply pressure" on the business owners, creating a state of submission. It is important to note that extortion can also be configured in the absence of a direct public official, provided there is collusive behavior.

  • Threats of inspections to obtain money.
  • Request for valuable goods under threat.
  • Active role in intimidating the entrepreneurs.

Mitigating Circumstances and the Defendant's Behavior

The third ground for appeal concerned the failure to grant mitigating circumstances. The Court clarified that mere lack of a criminal record is not sufficient to obtain mitigations; the defendant's procedural behavior, characterized by inconsistent statements, weighed negatively. This position of the Court seems to follow a more recent trend that distinguishes between the absence of responsibility and the assessment of procedural conduct.

Conclusions

The ruling No. 17918 of 2023 reaffirmed the severity of measures against the crime of extortion and the necessity for cooperative behavior from the defendant. The importance of rationale in judicial decisions is evident, and the Court clarified how the defendant's conduct can influence the outcome of the trial. This case serves as a warning for all those operating in the field of law, emphasizing the importance of transparency and fairness in commercial interactions and relationships with public authorities.