Criminal Law Observatory · – 1 September 2026
Appropriazione indebita (misappropriation, Article 646 of the Italian Criminal Code, c.p.) is complete at the time and in the place where the possessor performs the first act of dominion incompatible with the title under which he holds: this is the interversione, the reversal of the intention with which possession was held, and it must be manifested in recognisable conduct. Where the act of appropriation has already been manifested, a later demand for restitution that goes unanswered proves it, it does not create it. Where instead the conduct remains concealed, or is spread over a continuing course of management, the case law places completion — and with it the running of the prescrizione, the limitation period — at the refusal to return the property or to account for it: the point is not settled, and it falls to the defence to show that the interversione was perceptible earlier.
The point was revisited by Cass. pen., Sez. VI, no. 9180/2026 (hearing 16 December 2025, filed 10 March 2026), a decision given in a case of peculato, embezzlement by a person entrusted with public money: the delegate appointed to conduct the sale in real-property enforcement proceedings had diverted the sums in the accounts of the proceedings to a personal account, by instant transfers ordered through home banking. The Court placed the interversione at the moment when, by those transfers, the sums were in fact and irrevocably given a destination other than the one required by the appointment, and drew from this that the place where the offence is complete coincides with that of the receiving bank account. The decision concerns territorial jurisdiction; on the moment at which appropriazione indebita is complete it counts as an argument of structure, not as precedent on that point.
Corte costituzionale no. 46/2024 restored the penalty to imprisonment of up to five years and a fine of between 1,000 and 3,000 euro. Prescrizione: six years (Article 157(1) c.p.), seven years and six months if interrupted (Article 161(2) c.p.); it ceases to run at the first-instance judgment (Article 161-bis c.p.).
For the amministratore di condominio, the manager of a condominium, Cass. pen., Sez. II, no. 20488/2024 (filed 23 May 2024) ruled out that completion is broken up into the individual shortfalls, and identified the dies a quo of the limitation period as the moment when, at the end of the management, the manager refused to hand over the money and the accounts, the resources of the condominium being otherwise indistinguishable from the sums diverted; the prosecution tends to extend that reasoning to a company director, but this is an extension, not settled law.
The querela, the victim’s formal complaint, within three months (Article 124 c.p.); prosecution ex officio under Article 649-bis c.p. only for the facts under Article 646, second paragraph, or aggravated under Article 61, no. 11, with aggravating circumstances of special effect other than recidivism, or where the injured party is incapable by reason of age or infirmity. Defence counsel fixes the date of completion by written submissions (Article 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, c.p.p., during the investigation, Article 121 c.p.p. thereafter). Since Article 646 is assigned by name to citazione diretta a giudizio, direct summons to trial, by Article 550, second paragraph, c.p.p., there is no committal hearing: lack of territorial jurisdiction must be raised, on pain of forfeiture (Article 21(2) c.p.p.), at the udienza di comparizione predibattimentale, the pre-trial appearance hearing, immediately after the first verification that the parties are properly before the court, and it is thereafter precluded and can no longer be raised at trial (Article 554-bis(3) c.p.p.). At that hearing the judge ascertains whether the complainant, if present, is willing to withdraw the querela and the accused to accept the withdrawal (Article 554-bis(4) c.p.p.), which extinguishes the offence (Article 152 c.p.); Article 162-ter c.p., which extinguishes the offence upon full restitution and compensation before the opening of the trial, cannot instead be invoked where the prosecution proceeds ex officio under Article 649-bis c.p.
Does the letter demanding restitution start the limitation period running?
It depends. If the act of dominion incompatible with the title under which the property is held has already taken place and is recognisable, the letter merely proves it, and the period runs from that earlier act. If instead the appropriation had not been manifested earlier, the case law tends to fix the dies a quo at the refusal to return the property or to account for it: to that effect Sez. II no. 20488/2024, for the amministratore di condominio.
Is a company director who has made repeated withdrawals answerable for a single offence?
Not necessarily. If each withdrawal can be isolated and recognised, each has its own date of completion, and the relationship between them is one of continuazione (a continuing course of offences) under Article 81 c.p. The bringing of the conduct together at the refusal to hand over at the end of the management was stated, by Sez. II no. 20488/2024, for the amministratore di condominio: extending it to a company is a prosecution argument, not an established principle.
By when may the querela be withdrawn?
Withdrawal may take place only before conviction (Article 152, fifth paragraph, c.p.). In proceedings by citazione diretta, the two-sided verification provided for by Article 554-bis(4) c.p.p. is the ordinary occasion for doing so.
Can a conviction that is already final be revisited after Corte costituzionale no. 46/2024?
Only if the sentence was determined on the range introduced by Law of 9 January 2019, no. 3 — imprisonment of two to five years — and therefore for facts falling between 31 January 2019 and 28 March 2024. In that case the route is the incidente di esecuzione (post-judgment enforcement proceedings): Article 30(4) of Law no. 87/1953 does not bring about an automatic annulment, but opens the way to a redetermination of the sentence in executivis (Cass., Sez. U., no. 42858/2014, Gatto). Outside that window the range struck down is not, as a rule, the one applied; if it had been applied by mistake, the defect is that of an unlawful penalty and must be raised on that different footing.
Is it true that with appropriazione indebita there is never a committal hearing?
Yes. Article 646 c.p. is listed by name in Article 550, second paragraph, c.p.p. among the cases of citazione diretta a giudizio, and this irrespective of the statutory maximum penalty. The practical consequence is that preliminary issues, territorial jurisdiction included, are exhausted at the udienza di comparizione predibattimentale.
Principal decision: Corte di cassazione penale (Italian Court of Cassation, criminal side), Sezione VI, judgment no. 9180/2026, hearing 16 December 2025, filed 10 March 2026 (Pres. De Amicis, Rel. Ricciarelli). A decision given in a case of peculato (embezzlement by a person entrusted with public money), on the point of the place where the offence is complete and of territorial jurisdiction. The citation must always carry the year 2026: the heading ‘9180/2025’ that appears in another source is inconsistent with the filing date and has not been followed.
Decision cited: Corte di cassazione penale, Sezione II, judgment no. 20488 of 2024, filed 23 May 2024, on appropriazione indebita (misappropriation, Article 646 of the Italian Criminal Code) by an amministratore di condominio (the manager of a condominium). Division, number and filing date are given concordantly by several qualified secondary sources, independent of one another; the full text was not read, the official database was not consulted, and the hearing date and the ECLI code do not appear. The decision is cited as an interpretive line, not as binding precedent.
Decision cited: Corte di cassazione penale, Sezioni Unite, judgment no. 42858/2014 (hearing 29 May 2014, filed 14 October 2014), Gatto, on the powers of the giudice dell’esecuzione (the judge with jurisdiction after final judgment) where a provision bearing on the penalty has been declared unconstitutional. Hearing and filing dates corroborated by several independent and concordant sources; the full text was not read.
Decision cited: Corte costituzionale, judgment no. 46/2024 (21 February – 22 March 2024, in Gazzetta Ufficiale, 1st special series, 27 March 2024, no. 13), as it appears from updating note (356) to Article 646 of the Criminal Code on Normattiva.
Transparency declarations as to sources (made here, on the published page, and not in an internal note):
– The full text of judgment Sez. VI no. 9180/2026 was not read. The official PDF available is an image scan, from which text extraction yields zero characters. The judgment has been known only through headnotes and commentary.
– The full text of judgment Sez. II no. 20488/2024 was not read, nor was the official database consulted.
– No proposition in this note goes beyond the content of the headnotes and commentaries consulted. As to no. 9180/2026, the account given is that which appears from the commentaries: instant bank transfers ordered through home banking by the delegate appointed to conduct the sale. No letter refusing restitution appears in the sources known, and none is asserted.
– Legislation: read in full and in the original on Normattiva, texts in force at 1 September 2026, Articles 30 of Law no. 87/1953; 2, 61 no. 11, 81, 124, 152, 157, 161, 161-bis, 162-ter, 646, 649-bis of the Criminal Code; 21, 121, 367, 550, 554-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure; Law of 9 January 2019, no. 3.
– Case law: known only through headnotes and commentary, never in the original.
– This note is for information only and contains no prediction as to the outcome of any individual proceedings.
Summary note by Studio Legale Petrali, based on specialised legal sources. This text does not reproduce third-party contributions and does not constitute legal advice.