Analysis of Judgment No. 25169 of 2023: Embezzlement and Lotto Gaming

Judgment No. 25169 of February 15, 2023, published on June 9, 2023, offers an important reflection on the configurability of the crime of embezzlement for the owners of lotto agencies. This pronouncement by the Court of Cassation has raised questions about the management of public money and the responsibilities of public officials in specific contexts such as gaming.

The Case and the Court's Decision

The case in question involved Amos U., the owner of a lotto agency, accused of embezzlement for placing bets for himself without paying the due amount to the State. The Court of Appeal of Turin had convicted the individual, but the Supreme Court annulled this decision, reiterating that the crime of embezzlement is not configurably in such circumstances.

Lotto gaming - Owner of the agency placing bets for himself without due payment - Public nature of the money - Exclusion. The crime of embezzlement is not configurably applicable to the owner of a lotto agency who places bets for himself in his premises without paying the due amount to the State, given the public nature of the money subject to the alleged appropriation. (In its reasoning, the Court clarified that this money, not subject to collection, is not available to the receiver by virtue of his office, nor does he appropriate it through a conversion of the title of possession).

The Public Nature of Money and the Implication for Embezzlement

The Court clarified that the money subject to the alleged appropriation, in the specific case of the bets placed by the receiver, is not considered public for the purposes of the configurability of the crime of embezzlement. This means that the owner of the agency does not acquire availability of such money by virtue of his role, nor does he appropriate it illegally.

  • The gaming money is not subject to immediate collection by the receiver.
  • Jurisdiction is limited by the public nature of the money in question.
  • The receiver does not appropriate the money by virtue of his official position.

This interpretation not only clarifies the position of the receiver but also reflects a broader principle concerning the distinction between public and private assets within the Italian legal system.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 25169 of 2023 represents an important step forward in understanding the responsibilities of public officials in the context of managing public money. It highlights the necessity of a clear distinction between money that is considered public and that which is not, especially in gaming situations. This pronouncement not only reassures agency owners but also provides food for thought for potential future legislative reforms in the field of criminal law and the management of public officials.

Bianucci Law Firm