Judgment No. 36940 of 2024: Exclusion of Statements in the Theft of Electricity
The judgment No. 36940 of September 18, 2024, filed on October 4, 2024, represents an important milestone in the Italian legal landscape regarding the theft of electricity. The Court of Cassation addressed the delicate issue of the admissibility of statements made to the Enel inspector, clarifying some fundamental aspects involving the nature of inspection activities and the right of defense of the accused.
The Context of the Judgment
The case in question involved the defendant G. M., accused of theft of electricity. During checks conducted by Enel personnel, statements emerged from M. that, according to the prosecution, could have demonstrated the existence of the crime. However, the Court had to assess the validity of such statements in the context of a criminal trial.
Legal Principles Established
Theft of electricity - Verification activities of the Enel inspector - Administrative inspection nature - Existence - Statements made to the inspector by an individual for whom indicative data of the existence of a crime have emerged - Ordinary judgment - Admissibility - Exclusion - Verification report - Admissibility - Conditions. In the matter of theft of electricity, statements made to the Enel inspector by an individual for whom even simple indicative data of an appreciable fact as a crime have emerged are inadmissible in the ordinary judgment, as the verification activity has an administrative inspection nature under Article 220 of the implementing provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the prohibition of testimony on statements made by the defendant or accused also applies to those made during the inspection activity by a person subsequently subjected to investigations. (In the reasoning, the Court also stated that the report drafted by the inspector is, instead, admissible for the purpose of proving the verification carried out, the methods of electricity theft, the description of the state of the places, and the occurrence of the theft).
This maxim provides an important interpretative key regarding the actions of inspectors and their role in the process. Essentially, statements made during verification activities cannot be used as evidence in criminal proceedings, as such activities have an inspection nature and not an accusatory one.
Implications for Criminal Law
The judgment highlights the delicate balance between the right of defense and the prerogatives of control bodies. It is essential that the evidence used in criminal proceedings is collected in compliance with the rights of the accused, avoiding that potentially coercive statements could influence the final judgment.
- Statements made to the Enel inspector cannot be used in the ordinary judgment.
- The inspector's report is admissible to demonstrate the verification carried out and the methods of electricity theft.
- The inspection nature of the verification activity excludes the possibility of using statements from the accused as evidence.
Conclusions
In conclusion, judgment No. 36940 of 2024 represents a step forward in protecting the rights of the accused and in defining the boundaries between inspection activities and evidentiary activities in criminal law. It is essential that legal practitioners take note of these indications to ensure a fair and equitable process, in compliance with current regulations and principles of legality.
