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

Judgment No. 27090 of 2024: Reflections on Extortion and Embezzlement

The recent judgment No. 27090 of the Court of Cassation, issued on July 9, 2024, has generated significant interest in the Italian legal landscape, addressing crucial issues concerning the crimes of extortion and embezzlement. The Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal of Bari, raising fundamental questions about the distinction between undue influence and extortion, and clarifying some aspects of the criminal liability of public officials.

Main Issues Addressed

The Court examined several charges, with particular attention to the conduct attributed to A.A., the mayor of the municipality of M, and highlighted how the reasoning of the Court of Appeal was not sufficiently robust to support the charge of extortion, opting instead for the reclassification to undue influence. In particular, the Court emphasized:

  • The necessity of a reinforced reasoning when overturning acquittals.
  • The distinction between the crime of extortion, characterized by threat or violence, and undue influence, based on a more subtle moral pressure.
  • The role of entrepreneur D.D. in maintaining good relations with the administration, which influenced his decisions.
The Court established that the relationships between A.A. and D.D. do not qualify as extortionate, but rather as situations of undue influence, where the entrepreneur sought personal advantages.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has important consequences for Italian jurisprudence, as it clarifies the boundaries between the crimes of extortion and undue influence, contributing to a better understanding of the behavior of public officials and private individuals. The Court stated that the fundamental element for qualifying a conduct as extortion is the presence of a direct threat, which was absent in the case of D.D., where the pressures exerted by A.A. did not constitute an abuse of power in the strict sense.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 27090 of 2024 represents an important step forward in defining the criminal responsibilities of public officials and private individuals. The Court, by clarifying the distinction between undue influence and extortion, provides useful tools for the correct application of the law and for the protection of the rights of entrepreneurs and citizens. With a renewed focus on reasoning and the analysis of interpersonal relationships, a more equitable and conscious justice is hoped for.