The Aggravated Fraud and Administrative Liability: Analysis of the Sentence Cass. Pen. n. 37655/2023
The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, n. 37655/2023, provides significant insights regarding the configuration of the crime of aggravated fraud, linking it to the administrative liability of the involved companies. The Court overturned a previous acquittal ruling, highlighting the criminal relevance of false reporting behaviors and the mechanism for the restitution of sums disbursed by the Ministry of Transport.
Context of the Sentence
The three defendants, A.A., B.B., and C.C., along with two companies, were initially acquitted by the Court of Genoa for the crime of aggravated fraud, as there was no evidence of the fictitiousness of the reported costs. However, the Court of Appeal accepted the Public Prosecutor's appeal, considering that the agreement between the parties for the partial restitution of the received funds constituted a fraudulent mechanism. The Court thus convicted the defendants and affirmed the administrative liability of the companies.
The Court emphasized that the artifice lies in presenting uncertain costs as if they had been incurred.
The Implications of the Sentence
One of the central issues addressed by the Court pertains to the nature of the agreement between the parties, which involved the partial restitution of unduly received funds. According to the Court, this mechanism deceived the Ministry, leading to a contribution higher than what was actually due.
- Recognition of criminal liability for aggravated fraud.
- Affirmation of the administrative liability of the involved companies.
- Re-evaluation of the quantification of the confiscation in relation to the illicit profit.
The Court indeed established that the sum of approximately Euro 176,000, initially confiscated, should be reduced to Euro 38,858.10, corresponding to the undue profit received.
Conclusions
The examined ruling underscores the importance of rigorous control over the reports submitted to the Ministry and the need to avoid mechanisms that may generate confusion between lawful and unlawful behaviors. Through this ruling, the Court of Cassation reaffirms its position of strictness towards behaviors that, while appearing formally legitimate, conceal fraudulent intents.
