Analysis of Judgment No. 44734 of 2024: Ideological Falsehood and Special Power of Attorney

The judgment no. 44734 of October 3, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers significant insights into the theme of ideological falsehood in public acts, particularly concerning the special power of attorney to sell. This case is emblematic for understanding the legal dynamics involving the attestations of public officials and their impact on the validity of notarial acts.

The Case and the Judgment

In this specific case, the accused, A. L., was charged with presenting a false power of attorney to qualify as the special attorney of a seller in a real estate transaction. The Court established that the conduct of the agent constitutes the crime of ideological falsehood in public acts based on the inducement of the public official. This means that, based on a falsely formed power of attorney, the agent was able to induce the notary to proceed with the sale, believing in the legitimacy of his representation.

False special power of attorney to sell - Presentation during the notarial deed - Crime of ideological falsehood in public acts based on the inducement of the public official - Existence - Crime of false attestation or declaration concerning personal identity or qualities - Exclusion - Reasons. In terms of false crimes, the conduct of the agent, who qualifies as the special attorney of the owner of a property to be sold based on a falsely formed power of attorney, constitutes the crime of ideological falsehood in public acts based on the inducement of the public official, and not that of false attestation or declaration concerning personal identity or qualities, thereby inducing the notary to notarize the related sale on the presumption of the real existence of the power of representation. (In the reasoning, the Court emphasized that the undeniable falsehood of the power of attorney, an act having fiduciary efficacy, is transformed into the attestation emanating from the notary who, in acknowledging the existence of the power of attorney to sell, autonomously attests to the existence of a fact in reality that does not correspond to the truth).

Legal Implications

This judgment clarifies that, in the case of a falsified power of attorney, the crime is configured as ideological falsehood, excluding the crime of false attestation or declaration concerning personal identity or qualities. The reasons for this distinction are crucial for understanding the legal responsibilities of those who use false acts to obtain illicit advantages. When a public official, such as a notary, attests to the truthfulness of an act based on a false power of attorney, he himself commits an act of ideological falsehood, as his attestation is based on a fact not corresponding to reality.

  • Importance of verifying the validity of the power of attorney.
  • Responsibility of the notary and other public officials.
  • Criminal consequences for the use of false acts.

Conclusions

The judgment no. 44734 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the jurisprudence concerning false crimes. It underscores the need for rigorous control over the truthfulness of notarial acts and the effectiveness of powers of attorney, highlighting how the responsibility does not fall solely on the agent who falsified the act but also on those who, as public officials, attest to the truthfulness of such acts. Awareness of these dynamics is essential for both industry professionals and ordinary citizens, so that public faith and the correctness of legal transactions can be protected.

Bianucci Law Firm