Judgment No. 27748 of 2024: Concurrent Offense of Receiving Stolen Goods and Possession of Counterfeit Distinctive Signs

The recent judgment No. 27748 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, has raised important questions regarding the concurrence of crimes, particularly between receiving stolen goods and possession of counterfeit distinctive signs. This ruling provides significant points for reflection for legal practitioners and those involved in similar legal matters.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

The Court established that the crime of receiving stolen goods, governed by Article 648 of the Penal Code, and the possession of counterfeit distinctive signs, provided for by Article 497 ter, can coexist without entering into a relationship of specialty. This means that, according to the Court, the incriminating behaviors are structurally and chronologically distinct. In other words, the commission of one act does not exclude the other, and the judge can therefore punish both offenses.

This interpretation is fundamental to understanding the scope of illicit conduct and the related penalties. In fact, according to case law, the concurrence of crimes is possible when the conducts are different and do not overlap, as in the case at hand.

Analysis of the Legal Maxim

Concurrence with the crime of possession of counterfeit distinctive signs - Existence - Reasons. The crime of receiving stolen goods and that of possession of counterfeit distinctive signs can concur, describing the incriminating behaviors as different from a structural and chronological point of view, among which a relationship of specialty cannot be configured.

The cited legal maxim highlights that the judge has the discretion to evaluate the presence of multiple illicit conducts even if they are related to a similar context. This aspect is particularly relevant in an era where illegal trade and counterfeiting are on the rise. The possibility of simultaneously prosecuting multiple criminally relevant behaviors allows for effective counteraction of such phenomena.

Practical Implications and Conclusions

The practical implications of judgment No. 27748 are manifold:

  • Legal clarity: The judgment offers a clear interpretation of the criminal offenses, avoiding confusion among the different conducts.
  • Greater protection of property: The ability to simultaneously pursue receiving stolen goods and possession of counterfeit distinctive signs allows for more effective protection of intellectual and commercial property.
  • Awareness for practitioners: Legal and business professionals must be informed about the legal consequences of their actions.

In conclusion, judgment No. 27748 of 2024 represents an important step forward in understanding and applying the rules related to the concurrence of crimes. It offers a clear and defined legal framework, useful for navigating the complex world of law and justice.

Bianucci Law Firm