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

Analysis of the Judgment of the Court of Cassation, Criminal Section VI, No. 36432/2024: Embezzlement and Strengthened Reasoning

The judgment No. 36432 of September 30, 2024, of the Court of Cassation offers an important reflection on the issue of acquittal in cases of embezzlement. The Court annulled the decision of the Court of Appeal of Bologna, which had acquitted the defendant A.A. of the crime of embezzlement. This case raises fundamental questions regarding the reasoning of judgments and the obligation of strengthened reasoning in appeal proceedings.

The Case

In the trial, A.A., head of the Unep Office at the Court of Parma, was accused of appropriating sums intended for the purchase of goods for the office. The Court of Appeal justified the acquittal by asserting that A.A. believed he had the right to access those funds, based on two elements: the erroneous summons in a civil trial and the tax documentation of the invoices issued in the name of the office.

The Court of Cassation emphasized that the appellate judge must provide strengthened reasoning when deciding to overturn a first-instance judgment.

Obligation of Strengthened Reasoning

The core of the Cassation's decision lies in the obligation of strengthened reasoning. The Court reiterated that when the appellate judge intends to overturn an acquittal, they must provide a particularly solid justification framework. This includes:

  • A thorough analysis of the first-instance judgment.
  • Clear explanations of why the contested decision is not shared.
  • Clarifications on how a new evidentiary assessment was reached.
  • Arguments demonstrating the existence of reasonable doubt.

The Cassation found that the Court of Appeal did not meet these requirements, limiting itself to declaring A.A.'s good faith without providing adequate reasoning on how his actions could be justified.

Conclusions

The judgment No. 36432/2024 represents a clear affirmation of the importance of reasoning in legal decisions. The Court of Cassation established that the lack of adequate reasoning in overturning a first-instance judgment not only undermines the legitimacy of the decision but also questions confidence in the judicial system. In this case, the Court of Appeal will be called to re-examine A.A.'s case, taking into due consideration the principles of strengthened reasoning indicated by the Cassation.