Commentary on Judgment No. 23931 of 2023: Attempted Crime and Territorial Jurisdiction

The Judgment No. 23931 of January 24, 2023 represents an important ruling by the Court of Cassation regarding attempted crime and territorial jurisdiction. This decision, which focuses on the criteria for identifying the last act aimed at committing a crime, provides fundamental insights for legal practitioners and anyone interested in the dynamics of criminal law.

The Context of the Judgment

With this ruling, the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible, highlighting that the last act aimed at committing an attempted crime must be interpreted in its naturalistic dimension. This means that it is necessary to consider the final act in its intention to perpetrate the crime, even if the criminal objective has not been achieved. The judgment emphasizes, therefore, that it is not relevant whether the act can be traced back to an autonomous crime, but it is essential that it is purposefully directed towards the commission of the crime itself.

Attempted crime - Last act aimed at committing the crime - Identification - Criteria - Configurability of autonomous crime - Irrelevance - Hypothesis. Regarding territorial jurisdiction related to attempted crime, the last act aimed at committing the crime, to which reference must be made ex art. 8, paragraph 4, code of criminal procedure, must be understood in its naturalistic dimension and as purposefully directed towards the perpetration of the crime in relation to which the conduct has not been completed or the event has not occurred, remaining indifferent to the circumstance that it can be abstractly traced back to an autonomous crime.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for judicial practice. In particular, it clarifies that legal practitioners must pay attention not only to the final act but also to its purpose. The analysis of the conduct must be carried out with a comprehensive view, considering the elements that characterize the attempted crime.

  • The purpose of the act: it must be oriented towards the commission of the crime.
  • The naturalistic dimension of the act: it is essential to understand the context and the agent's intentions.
  • The irrelevance of the configurability of an autonomous crime: what matters is the act in relation to the attempted crime.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 23931 of 2023 offers a clear interpretation of the criteria for territorial jurisdiction in the case of attempted crime. It encourages reflection on the importance of considering the purposeful dimension of acts and their connection to the attempted crime. This approach not only enriches case law but also provides useful tools for the correct application of criminal law.

Bianucci Law Firm