The Configurability of the Crime of Fraud According to Judgment No. 45599 of 2024

Judgment No. 45599 of October 30, 2024, by the Court of Cassation represents an important reference point for understanding the crime of fraud, particularly regarding the relationship between the person induced into error and the one who suffers the financial damage. This ruling clarifies that the identity between the two figures is not necessary, but the existence of a causal link is fundamental.

The Context of the Judgment

The case examined by the Court concerned the defendant S. C., who had purchased a property under a subsidized housing scheme, misleading the selling company regarding his possession of the necessary requirements to enter into the contract. This behavior caused harm to the municipality, which saw the loss of construction fee revenues.

The Court thus reiterated that, for the configurability of the crime of fraud, it is sufficient to demonstrate that a causal link exists between the inducement to error, the profit obtained by the defendant, and the damage suffered by the victim. This principle is of great relevance, as it broadens the application scope of the crime of fraud, allowing for the punishment of fraudulent behavior even in the absence of direct contact between the fraudster and the defrauded party.

The Maxim of the Judgment

Fraud - Difference between the person induced into error and the person who has suffered financial damage - Configurability. For the configurability of the crime of fraud, the identity between the person induced into error and the one who has suffered financial damage is not necessary, provided that, even in the absence of direct contacts between the fraudster and the defrauded, there exists a causal link between the inducement to error, the profit, and the damage. (Case in which the defendant had purchased a property under a subsidized housing scheme, misleading the selling company regarding the possession of the requirements to enter into the contract, thus causing the municipality damage due to the loss of construction fee revenues).

This maxim offers a clear interpretation of the crime of fraud, highlighting that the essential element is not so much the direct relationship between the involved parties, but the demonstration of a genuine deception that has led to economic damage. With this ruling, the Court aligns itself with a legal precedent already established by previous decisions, consolidating a trend that ensures greater protection for victims of fraud.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 45599 of 2024 represents an important piece in the fight against fraud and scams in the financial realm. Its interpretation of the crime of fraud allows for extending liability to deceptive behaviors even when there is no direct contact between the perpetrator and the victim. This approach not only strengthens the legal protection of victims but also provides more effective tools for pursuing those responsible for fraudulent acts. It is therefore essential that both legal professionals and citizens are aware of these provisions to protect their rights.

Bianucci Law Firm