• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Judgment No. 34216 of 2024: Analysis of the Supreme Court on Fraudulent Bankruptcy

The judgment no. 34216 of 2024, issued by the Supreme Court, Section V Criminal, addresses a crucial issue regarding the legitimacy of the penalty applied in cases of fraudulent bankruptcy. In this context, the case of A.A., former vice president of a cooperative society, highlights the legal complexities related to the application of the penalty and plea bargaining.

The Case of A.A. and the Court's Decision

The appellant opposed the ruling of the Court of Siena, which had accepted the plea bargaining request and imposed a penalty of two years and four months of imprisonment. The challenge was based on the incorrect application of the continuation of bankruptcy, which had been considered both as an aggravating factor and as part of the penalty calculation, leading to an impermissible increase in the sanction.

The Supreme Court clarified that the erroneous application of the continuation of bankruptcy does not automatically render the penalty illegal, unless it exceeds the limits provided by law.

The Concept of Illegality of the Penalty

The ruling highlights the distinction between an illegitimate penalty and an illegal penalty. According to established jurisprudence, a penalty is considered illegal only if it does not conform to what is provided by the legal system, both in terms of type and quantity. In the case of A.A., despite the error in calculation, the penalty fell within the limits established for fraudulent bankruptcy.

  • The penalty is considered illegal if:
  • It is not provided for by the legal system in terms of type or quantity.
  • It exceeds the limits established for the specific offense.

Implications for Plea Bargaining

A significant aspect of the ruling concerns the methods of appealing plea bargaining sentences. The Court established that the appeal is admissible only for specific reasons related to the illegality of the penalty. This significantly limits the possibilities for review, emphasizing the importance of a clear agreement between the parties in the plea bargaining process.

Conclusion

Judgment no. 34216 of 2024 represents an important piece in Italian jurisprudence regarding criminal law and bankruptcy. It clarifies that the incorrect application of the rules on the continuation of bankruptcy does not automatically lead to the illegality of the penalty, unless specific regulatory violations occur. This judicial orientation has significant implications for both legal professionals and defendants involved in bankruptcy cases.