Judgment No. 44230 of 2024: Extortion and Property Damage in Criminal Law

The ruling No. 44230 of November 13, 2024, by the Court of Cassation has provided important clarifications on the concept of property damage in relation to extortion crimes. This decision represents a significant reference point for understanding the legal dynamics surrounding such crimes, emphasizing how the loss of economic opportunities can be a key element in the configuration of the crime of extortion.

Property Damage and Extortion: A Key Concept

According to the Court, property damage is not limited to the immediate loss of assets or values but also includes the loss of a serious and substantial possibility of obtaining an asset or an economically assessable result. This concept is essential for understanding how jurisprudence interprets damage within the crime of extortion. The legal maxim established states that:

Property damage - Notion - Loss of a serious and substantial possibility of obtaining an asset or an economically assessable result - Existence - Identification criterion - Indication - Specific case. In the context of extortion, the notion of property damage, relevant for the configurability of the crime, also includes the loss of a serious and substantial possibility of obtaining an asset or an economically assessable result, the existence of which must be proven based on the notion of causality specific to criminal law. (In application of this principle, the Court deemed the decision that identified the crime of extortion, and not that of private violence, in the conduct of the appellant who forced the victim to admit the charge in the judicial separation proceedings, identifying the profit in the financial advantage of not paying alimony, as free from criticism).

Implications of the Ruling

This ruling clarifies that, to configure the crime of extortion, it is not necessary to demonstrate a loss of tangible assets, but it is sufficient to prove the loss of economic opportunities. In this specific case, the Court considered that the defendant's behavior, forcing the victim to acknowledge a charge in a separation proceeding, resulted in an economic advantage, namely the non-payment of alimony. This aspect is crucial, as it broadens the definition of property damage and makes it more applicable to various legal situations.

  • The ruling highlights the importance of proving causality in criminal law.
  • The distinction between extortion and private violence is reaffirmed.
  • It is emphasized that property damage can arise from aspects not immediately apparent, such as the loss of opportunities.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 44230 of 2024 represents an important evolution in the understanding and application of the rules regarding extortion and property damage. The Court clarified how the loss of economic opportunities can integrate the concept of damage, making the interpretation of criminal law more complex but also fairer. This ruling invites reflection on how crimes against property can have broad and significant consequences, not only for material goods but also for the economic opportunities of victims.

Bianucci Law Firm