Commentary on Judgment No. 26190 of 2023: Contractual Fraud and Instantaneous Execution Contracts

The judgment no. 26190 of May 26, 2023 provides important clarifications on the configurability of the crime of fraud in instantaneous execution contracts. In particular, the Court of Cassation emphasized that fraud can only be configured if the artifices or deceptions are carried out at the time of negotiation and conclusion of the contract, thus excluding criminal relevance for misleading conduct that occurs subsequently.

The Legal Context

The case dealt with by the Court concerns a situation in which the defendants had rented an apartment, issuing checks without cover as a deposit. However, the contract was subsequently terminated due to impossibility of performance. The Court annulled the conviction, highlighting that there were no artifices or deceptions at the time of the stipulation, thus rendering the subsequent conduct irrelevant.

Contractual fraud - Instantaneous execution contracts - Configurability of the crime - Conditions - Artifices and deceptions committed during the execution phase of the contract - Irrelevance - Conditions - Case law. In instantaneous execution contracts, the crime of fraud is constituted by the artifices and deceptions carried out at the time of negotiation and conclusion of the legal transaction that mislead the passive subject, inducing them to give consent that they otherwise would not have given, so that, in the case of a contract concluded without any artifice or deception, the deceptive activity committed after the stipulation and during the execution of the contract is criminally irrelevant, unless it leads to further legal activity by the victim that would not have been carried out without that deceptive conduct. (In this case, the Court annulled the conviction due to the non-existence of the fact against individuals who had rented an apartment owned by the injured parties through the mediation of a real estate agency, issuing two checks without cover as a deposit, only to later withdraw from the contract due to an inability to meet the related obligations, with the commitment to return the apartment within three days).

The Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has several practical implications. First, it clarifies that fraud, in order to be configurable, must manifest at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and not in subsequent phases. This principle is fundamental for legal practitioners and anyone involved in the stipulation of contracts, as it clearly defines the limits of criminally relevant behavior.

  • Artifices and deceptions must be present at the time of the conclusion of the contract.
  • Misleading conduct occurring after the stipulation does not constitute a crime, unless it induces the victim to undertake further legal acts.
  • A careful assessment of the contractual circumstances is necessary to determine the existence of the crime.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 26190 of 2023 establishes an important precedent in the matter of contractual fraud, emphasizing the need for a precise analysis of the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of a contract. Legal practitioners will need to pay attention to these aspects to ensure the correct application of the rules and effective protection of their rights and interests.

Bianucci Law Firm