Judgment No. 33856 of 2024 on the Notary's Liability for Embezzlement

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, No. 33856 of 2024, highlighted important issues regarding the criminal liability of notaries in relation to embezzlement offenses. In particular, the Court examined the position of a notary accused of having appropriated funds intended for the payment of the registration tax, raising questions about the qualification of the conduct and the application of current regulations.

The Judicial Case

Notary A.A. was convicted of embezzlement after it emerged that, although he had received funds from clients for the payment of the registration tax, he had not paid them to the treasury. The Court of Appeal in Palermo, partially reforming the first-instance ruling, reduced the sentence but confirmed the notary's liability. The defense attorneys filed an appeal, arguing that the notary did not hold the status of a public official and that there had been no appropriation until the deadline for payment had expired.

The Court clarified that the notary, although not a public official in the strict sense, is nonetheless responsible for the amounts received as tax, constituting a serious breach.

The Arguments of the Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation rejected the defense's arguments, stating that the qualification of the notary as a public official extends to his functions as a tax officer. According to case law, the crime of embezzlement is completed not only with appropriation but also with mere delay in the payment of received amounts. It was established that the reversal of the title of possession occurs when the notary uses the funds for personal purposes, thus making the existence of the crime evident.

  • Recognition of the notary's status as a public official in relation to tax obligations.
  • The conduct of failing to pay the tax constitutes the crime of embezzlement.
  • The deadline for compliance does not exclude criminal liability.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 33856 of 2024 represents an important step forward in defining the liability of notaries in tax matters. It clarifies that, despite the complexity of notarial functions, compliance with tax obligations is essential, and failure to fulfill them can lead to significant criminal consequences. This case underscores the importance of vigilance and transparency in professional practices, ensuring that professionals in the field not only comply with regulations but actively contribute to tax legality.

Bianucci Law Firm