court of Cassation Ruling: Appeal Rejected – No Prescription in Postponement
This document details the decision of the Court of Cassation regarding an appeal filed by SURNAME NAME. The appeal concerned a previous judgment and specifically addressed issues related too crimes of association, aggravated fraud, sentencing increases for related offenses, and the calculation of profit derived from fraud for purposes of confiscation.
The court of Cassation found the appeal largely inadmissible. Specifically, the Court deemed the first three grounds of appeal – relating to the charges of association (chapter 10) and aggravated fraud (chapter 12) – “not permitted, as they consist of mere complaints of fact, all aimed at prefiguring an alternative re-evaluation of the evidentiary sources, extraneous to the review of legitimacy and reiterative of the same complaints inherent to the reconstruction of the facts and the interpretation of the evidentiary material already expressed during the appeal and addressed in terms precise and conclusive by the Territorial Court.”
Though,the Court did accept two grounds for review: the fourth,concerning a lack of explanation regarding increases in sentences for continuously committed satellite crimes,and the sixth,which correctly identified the profit from the fraud as the market price of individual medicine packages,but limited its request to the joint and several liability of participants concerning confiscation by equivalent.
Crucially, the Court ruled that the inadmissibility of the appeal concerning responsibility for the fraud charge fundamentally restricts the referring judge’s authority. The judge is not permitted to examine the merits of the case beyond the devolved issues, nor to consider causes for non-punishment, such as the statute of limitations, whether accrued after the initial appeal sentence or during the original proceedings. The Court stated that allowing such consideration would constitute an improper “amnesty” of inadmissible situations and disrupt the proper procedural course.
The Court explicitly stated that this principle applies even if the statute of limitations had run, preventing any alteration of the original judgment due to the inadmissible challenge.
Therefore, the appeal was rejected, and SURNAME NAME was ordered to pay legal costs.
The request for reimbursement of costs incurred by the civil parties was denied, as the proceedings solely concerned the sanctioning treatment. The Court referenced Section 2, decision n. 18265 of January 16, 2015 (SURNAME and others, Rv. 263791) which established that in appeals brought by the accused, civil parties are not entitled to reimbursement of procedural costs if the appeal is rejected or declared inadmissible, as their interests are not directly affected by the outcome.
P.Q.M. (For These Reasons)
The appeal is rejected, and the appellant is ordered to pay the legal costs.
This decision was rendered on July 4, 2025.
The President.
