MULCTA. — Among the various penalties common to the Code of Canon Law and the Italian Penal Code, the *multa* (fine) still exists today. It may be defined, at least in general terms, as the burden imposed on violators of certain laws to pay a sum, more or less expressly fixed, in favor of the party whom the law or the judge designates.
I. IN CANON LAW
Ecclesiastical laws, from the 6th–7th centuries onward, introduced pecuniary penalties, deriving them from Germanic laws. This discipline persisted despite various abuses (which the Council of Trent later sought, in various sessions, to eliminate) until it was incorporated into the Code of Canon Law, with various modifications. In the Code, the *multa* is a common vindictive penalty, i.e., applicable not only to clerics but also to lay faithful (can. 2291, n. 12). Today, however, at least in many States, it would be, if not impossible, certainly problematic to impose the *multa* coercively—even assuming all spiritual coercions—on lay faithful, let alone on clerics, if they refuse to pay it voluntarily. Nevertheless, the Church is fully within her rights, and in fact uses the *multa* sparingly in various cases.The *multa* is prescribed in the following canons: 395 § 2 (to suppress certain negligences regarding dignity by canons and simple beneficiaries), 1625 § 5 (against judges who violate official secrecy or notify acts to outsiders), 1666 (against lawyers and procurators who have acted venally in their office), 2347 n. 2 (against an Ordinary or cleric who alienated ecclesiastical goods or consented thereto, in violation of cann. 534 § 1 and 1532), 2406 § 2 (against those who fail to satisfy legitimate requests for acts and documents from curias and parish archives), and 2408 (against those who unlawfully increase the fees established by can. 1507).
As regards the recipient, can. 2297 stipulates that the amount of the *multa* shall be allocated, unless otherwise provided—only the Code or a decree of the Holy See may so provide—for pious purposes, but never for the benefit of the episcopal table or the Chapter. This rule obviously applies also to pecuniary penalties imposed by particular laws of lower legislators. Unlike the Italian Penal Code, the Code of Canon Law makes no distinction—other than a merely quantitative one—between *multa* and fine.
II. IN ITALIAN LAW
The division between crimes (*delitti*) and misdemeanors (*contravvenzioni*) is reflected in a twofold pecuniary penalty: the *multa* for the former (art. 17, para. 1), and the fine (*ammenda*) for the latter.The *multa* is defined as the payment to the State of a sum not less than fifty lire nor more than fifty thousand lire (art. 24, para. 1), a sum which the Legislative Decree of 21 October 1947, no. 1250, raised to 400 and 400,000 lire respectively. Except for proportional *multae*, which have no upper limit, the others are fixed: and it is the law itself that determines both (art. 27). For example, the *multa* proportionate to the damage caused, as provided in arts. 250–252, has no maximum limit. The penal law also allows for the imposition of a *multa* in cases not expressly provided for by the Code: art. 24, para. 2 states that “for crimes motivated by gain, if the law prescribes only imprisonment, the judge may add a *multa* of from fifty to twenty thousand lire” (respectively, by the aforementioned Decree of 21 October 1947, 400 and 160,000 lire). In any case, “when, due to the economic conditions of the offender, the *multa* prescribed by law may be presumed ineffective even if applied at its maximum, the judge has the power to increase it up to threefold” (art. 24, para. 3). Even when there are multiple aggravating circumstances, the sum is tripled, but it may not exceed 100,000 lire, or, if adjusted to the offender’s economic conditions, 2,000,000 lire (art. 66, n. 3 and the Decree of 21 October 1947, no. 1250). In the case of multiple offenses, the highest of the concurrent *multae* is applied fivefold, without exceeding 1,200,000 lire, or, if adjusted to the offender’s economic conditions, 3,200,000 lire.
Although punishment by its nature requires personal satisfaction by the offender, it is exceptionally permitted that this may be paid by a third party on behalf of the offender: a circumstance that often mitigates the rule of art. 136 para. 1, which provides imprisonment for those proven insolvent, imprisonment which in such a case occurs *ex lege*. It should be noted, however, that not all pecuniary sanctions are *multae*, i.e., penalties in the strict sense, since there are also civil or financial pecuniary sanctions; the sole and absolute criterion of distinction is that only pecuniary penalties imposed for crimes are *multae*.
The penalty of *multa* is certainly lawful. It would, however, be more appropriate, with regard to the Italian Penal Code, to eliminate the distinction between those who are affected by it and those who are not; the law, especially penal law, should focus on the objective element when applying penalties, which should be equal for all. Moreover, it is highly problematic in many cases to judge who is more or less affected by a pecuniary burden, not to mention those who are scarcely affected at all, even in cases of a tripled *multa*; above all because, however inadequately, equal rights should correspond to an objectively equal penalty.
III. IN ARCHAEOLOGY
Often, in the sepulchral inscription, a sum of money (*multa*) was indicated as a penalty for anyone violating the integrity of the tomb, to be paid to the treasury or fiscus, and later to the ecclesiastical authority.Such fines are found in open-air sepulchral inscriptions. The earliest known to date is that on the epitaph of Bishop Albertius (v.) of Hierapolis, which imposes a *multa* of 2,000 aurei to be paid to the Roman treasury and 1,000 aurei to the city of Hierapolis. Frequent are the *multae* indicated in the I CONCORDIA (v.), in which the violator is to give (*dabit*) or pay (*inferat*) either to the city (*reipublicae*: CIL, V, 8741), or to the fiscus (ibid., 8740, 8745, 8761), or *viribus fisci* (ibid., 8734, 8739, 8743), or *rationibus fisci* (to the administration of the fiscus [ibid., 8988]), or even to the church of the city of Concordia (ibid., 8740). Similarly, in Dalmatia, in the inscriptions of Salona (*Ecclesiae Salontianae*, CIL, III, 2654, of the year 358; 9508 of the year 384; 13.124 of the year 426 or 430). The fine had to be paid immediately, *sine mora* (inscription of Concordia, ibid., V, 8740), or *ante litis ingressum* (inscription of Traù, ibid., III, 2704). As for the amount of the *multa*, it was at the discretion of the testator: indeed, it ranges from the 3,000 aurei imposed by Abercius down to 4 unciae of gold in the epitaph of Traù, 50 unciae of silver in that of Spalato (ibid., 2654), or fines calculated in sesterces at Concordia (ibid., V, 8988).