The Ruling by the Court of Milan
On May 3, 2024, the Court of Milan, Preliminary Investigations Judge’s Office, issued an order clarifying the configurability of the crime of receiving stolen goods in the context of criminal lawyers’ professional activities. The decision established that the crime of receiving stolen goods can be attributed to a lawyer’s conduct only if, at the time of accepting the money, the lawyer has acquired certainty that it comes from a crime, without imposing investigation obligations on the client’s income sources.
The Case at Hand
The Court of Milan examined the position of two criminal lawyers under investigation for receiving cash payments of presumed illicit origin as compensation for professional services. The request was to apply the interdiction measure of suspension from professional activity, pursuant to Article 290 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. The decision highlighted that the criminal origin of the money constitutes the most critical element for configuring the crime of receiving stolen goods.
Subjective Element of the Crime of Receiving Stolen Goods
The intent to receive stolen goods requires the awareness and willingness to receive money or goods with the knowledge of their criminal origin. Jurisprudence has often confused awareness with the possibility of it, but the Court of Milan’s ruling reaffirmed that eventual intent is only configurative when the agent, contemplating the possibility of the criminal origin of the money, would not have acted differently even with certainty of that origin.
The Specificity of the Lawyer-Client Relationship
Economic Relationships and the Origin of Money
The order emphasized the peculiarity of the economic relationship between a criminal lawyer and a client, especially when the client is suspected of having committed a crime. The possible awareness of the debtor’s criminal status cannot be sufficient to configure the crime of receiving stolen goods. If it were, the lawyer could never demand payment of fees from a client engaged in criminal activities.
Sensitivity of the Defense Relationship
The defense relationship between a lawyer and a client differs from any other contractual relationship, as it pertains to the fundamental right of defense. The ruling highlighted that imposing investigative obligations on the lawyer regarding the client’s income sources would interfere with the constitutional right of defense.
Judicial Precedents
Supreme Court Orientations
The Supreme Court has already clarified that the existence of the crime of receiving stolen goods must be excluded in family or obligatory relationships, where awareness of the criminal origin of the money is insufficient to configure the specific intent of the crime.
References to German Jurisprudence
The Court of Milan’s ruling developed a path similar to that of the German Constitutional Court, which admits incriminations only when the professional has full awareness of the criminal origin of the money, excluding mere suspicion from the area of criminal relevance.
Conclusion
The Court of Milan’s ruling represents an important clarification on the configurability of the crime of receiving stolen goods in the context of criminal lawyers’ professional activities. It underscores the importance of protecting the right of defense and avoiding investigative obligations that could interfere with the fiduciary relationship between lawyer and client.
The order demonstrates a cautious and protective approach, giving relevance to factual circumstances that exclude the criminal responsibility of lawyers in the absence of certainty about the criminal origin of the received money.