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

Analysis of the ruling Cass. pen., Sez. II, n. 38551 of 2019: the issue of usury

The Court of Cassation, with ruling n. 38551 of 2019, addressed a case of usury that raises fundamental questions regarding the definition and integration of this crime. The ruling offers important insights for lawyers and citizens, clarifying various aspects of the crime of usury and the methods of ascertaining the inductive conduct.

The context of the ruling

In the case at hand, D.M.C. had been convicted of continued usury, with the Court of Appeal of Milan confirming the first-instance decision. The defendant appealed, arguing that there was no inductive conduct attributable to him, and that the usurious promise was inadequate, being represented by uncovered checks.

The crime of usury can also be committed with the mere usurious promise, which highlights that, in this case, the subsequent events of the relationship between the parties do not affect the configurability of the crime.

The Court's arguments

The Court deemed the appeal inadmissible, emphasizing that inductive conduct is not an essential element for the configuration of the crime of usury. In particular, the Court stated that it is not necessary for the initiative to establish the negotiation to have been taken by the usurer; what matters is the objective usurious nature of the agreed conditions. Furthermore, the distinction between usury and extortion was highlighted, clarifying that for the crime of usury there is no requirement for pressures or intimidation, unlike extortion.

Legal principles established

The ruling reaffirmed some important legal principles:

  • Inductive conduct by the usurer is not necessary to constitute the crime of usury.
  • The crime of usury can be configured even with a simple usurious promise.
  • The distinction between usury and extortion is fundamental and must be clarified in judicial proceedings.

Moreover, the Court found that the assertion of responsibility was supported by sufficient evidence, including the statements of the injured party, deemed credible.

Conclusions

Ruling n. 38551 of 2019 represents an important point of reference for jurisprudence on usury. It clarifies that the mere acceptance of usurious conditions by the victim does not exclude the configurability of the crime, further emphasizing the importance of protecting vulnerable individuals in difficult financial situations. This ruling, therefore, not only provides a legal interpretation but also serves as a warning for those facing economic difficulties, highlighting the need to pay attention to the proposed loan conditions.