**TRUFFA** — Under Article 640 of the Italian Penal Code, “whoever, through artifices or deceits, inducing another into error, procures for himself or others an unjust profit to the detriment of another,” fulfills the legal definition of *truffa* (fraud) and is punishable by imprisonment from six months to three years and a fine from 4,000 to 80,000 lire.
*Truffa* falls among crimes against property committed through fraud, as it consists in deception by which the victim is induced to perform an act prejudicial to their property and advantageous to another. This fraudulently obtained consent of the victim clearly distinguishes *truffa* from theft and embezzlement, crimes that presuppose the dissent of the aggrieved party. The norm of Article 640 thus aims to protect not only property but also the freedom of consent in patrimonial transactions.
The legal definition of *truffa* encompasses a wide variety of acts, given the many forms this crime can assume. Despite this, leading doctrine considers the legal definition too narrow: many frauds deserving punishment are in fact excluded. Therefore, future legislators should either broaden the scope of the norm or supplement it with a more general provision. Under the current Italian code, the objective elements of *truffa* require that: 1) the agent employs artifices or deceits (artifice being a distortion of reality, deceit an ingenious twisting of words; though doctrine and jurisprudence interpret these terms broadly, even a simple lie or mere silence may constitute *truffa*; however, according to a recent clarification [Antolisei], such stratagems must not be minor tricks commonly occurring in a given setting or in certain relationships, tricks that social conscience condemns but considers mere “courtesies”); 2) these artifices or deceits cause a specific person, namely the victim, to fall into error (it matters not whether the victim facilitated this through ignorance or negligence); 3) this error leads the deceived party to perform an act disposing of their property (such an act may pertain to any element of property, including even labor); 4) this act results in damage to the victim or perhaps to another person and a benefit to a third party (the damage must be a patrimonial loss, including harm to items of purely sentimental value; this damage must correspond to an unjust profit of any kind accruing to another). The subjective element consists in intent, which requires that the agent: 1) voluntarily employed artifices or deceits with awareness of their fraudulent nature; 2) intended to induce the victim into error; 3) intended that the victim perform an act disposing of property; 4) intended to realize a profit and was aware of the injustice of that profit and the resulting damage to the deceived party. Given this multiplicity of elements, factual error plays a significant role. From the foregoing, it follows that the crime is consummated at the moment the profit is realized, a point that has occasioned much criticism. It should be noted, however, that the agent need not achieve the precise advantage sought; it suffices that the agent or a third party realizes any improvement in their patrimonial position.
According to more recent jurisprudential trends, the crime in question may also be established when the deceived party was misled while attempting to achieve an illicit end. This is because the criminalization of *truffa* is dictated by considerations of social interest.
Under the second paragraph of Article 640, *truffa* is aggravated (imprisonment from one to five years and a fine from 24,000 to 120,000 lire) if the act is committed to the detriment of the State or another public entity, or under the pretext of exempting someone from military service, or by inducing the victim to fear an imaginary danger or to erroneously believe they must obey an order of the authorities.
Articles 641, 642, and 643 contemplate three related offenses (respectively titled fraudulent insolvency; fraudulent destruction of one’s own property or self-mutilation; and circumvention of incapable persons), which doctrine customarily refers to as *truffa minor*. Except in the case of fraudulent insolvency, however, the penalties prescribed are not lighter than those for *truffa*; indeed, for the circumvention of incapable persons, imprisonment from two to six years is imposed in addition to a fine.
GIOVANNI CONSO