Analysis of Judgment No. 2625 of 19/11/2024: Crime of Unauthorized Use of Credit Card and Identity Theft

The recent judgment No. 2625 of the Court of Appeal of Rome, filed on January 22, 2025, addresses a matter of significant importance in the field of criminal law, concerning the interaction between the crime of unauthorized use of a credit card and that of identity theft. This ruling provides significant insights into how Italian jurisprudence interprets and applies the rules regarding crimes against public faith and property.

The Legal Context

Pursuant to Article 493-ter of the Penal Code, the unauthorized use of a credit card is a crime that causes harm not only to the victim's property but also to public faith. This aspect plays a crucial role in the Court’s reasoning, which has established that, in certain situations, the crime of identity theft may be absorbed into the offense outlined in Article 493-ter.

Crime of unauthorized use of a credit card - Absorption of the crime of identity theft - Conditions - Diachronic conduct - Concurrent crimes - Existence. The crime of unauthorized use of a credit card absorbs the crime of identity theft when the substitution is carried out through the same material conduct constituting the unauthorized use, given that the criminal offense under Article 493-ter of the Penal Code harms, in addition to property, also public faith, while that provided for in Article 494 of the Penal Code contains a reservation clause intended to operate even beyond the principle of specialty. (In the reasoning, the Court added that the two criminal offenses compete, instead, in cases where the identity theft is executed by distinct and prior conduct compared to that of the unauthorized use of credit cards).

Diachronic Conduct and Concurrent Crimes

A key element of the judgment is the distinction between diachronic and synchronous conduct. The Court clarified that if the identity theft occurs through the same material conduct of unauthorized use of the credit card, then the first offense absorbs the second. However, if the substitution is carried out through distinct and prior actions, the two offenses coexist and are punishable separately.

  • Absorption of offenses: occurs when conduct qualifies as a single criminal offense.
  • Concurrent crimes: applies when the conducts are different and a plurality of crimes occurs.
  • Relevance of public faith: the crime of unauthorized use of a credit card also undermines the trust of the community.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 2625 of 2024 represents an important legal interpretation that clarifies the dynamics between two offenses that, while distinct, may intersect under certain circumstances. It is essential for legal practitioners and citizens to understand how jurisprudence can influence criminal liability in cases of unlawful behavior related to the use of payment instruments. The Court of Appeal of Rome has provided an important contribution to defining the boundaries between offenses, emphasizing the need for careful evaluation of the specific conduct involved.

Bianucci Law Firm