Judgment No. 30016 of 2024: The Notion of Economic Damage in Cases of Extortion

The recent judgment No. 30016 of March 28, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides an important clarification regarding the definition of economic damage in the context of extortion crimes. This ruling is part of a broader legal debate concerning the configuration of economic damages and their proof, with particular attention paid to the notion of loss of economic opportunities.

The Context of the Ruling

The case in question involved G. A., accused of extortion. The Court of Appeal of Naples, through its decision on November 26, 2021, had already addressed the issue of economic damage, but the Cassation deemed it necessary to provide further clarification. The Court reiterated that, for the purposes of configuring the crime of extortion, economic damage is not limited to mere loss of property but also includes the loss of a serious and substantial opportunity to achieve an economically assessable good or result.

Economic Damage: A Broad Definition

Economic damage - Notion - Loss of a serious and substantial opportunity to achieve an economically assessable good or result - Existence - Identification criterion - Indication. In the context of extortion, the notion of economic damage relevant for the configuration of the crime also includes the loss of a serious and substantial opportunity to achieve an economically assessable good or result, whose existence must be proven based on the notion of causality specific to criminal law.

This maxim, fundamental for understanding the ruling, clarifies that economic damage in cases of extortion is not just monetary, but also encompasses economic opportunities that may have been compromised by the extortionate action. Thus, adequate proof of the causality between the criminal act and the loss suffered is necessary, an aspect that relates to Articles 1223 and 629 of the Civil and Criminal Codes.

Legal Implications and Regulatory References

The ruling is based on a solid legal foundation, invoking norms and preceding jurisprudence. Among the regulatory references, Article 629 of the Criminal Code defines extortion, while Article 1223 of the Civil Code clarifies the concept of compensable damage. It is interesting to note that the Court also referred to several prior maxims, highlighting how jurisprudence has evolved over time on this issue.

In particular, previous maxims, such as those from the United Sections, show a constant refinement of the notion of economic damage, making it clear that mere loss of property is not sufficient to configure the crime of extortion, but a broader assessment is required.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 30016 of 2024 represents an important step forward in understanding economic damage in the context of extortion crimes. It clarifies that damage goes beyond mere loss of tangible property, also including economic opportunities that may have been lost due to unlawful behavior. Legal practitioners must pay particular attention to the proof of causality and the analysis of losses suffered by the harmed parties, continuing to refer to established jurisprudence to navigate such a complex and multifaceted field.

Bianucci Law Firm