TRUFFA. – Under Art. 640 of the Italian Penal Code, “whoever, by artifices or deceitful devices, inducing another into error, procures for himself or for another an unjust profit to the detriment of another,” fulfils the elements of t. and is punished by imprisonment from six months to three years and a fine of from four thousand to eighty thousand lire.
T. belongs among offences against property committed by fraud, since it consists in a deception by which the victim is induced to perform an act detrimental to his property and advantageous to another. This consent of the victim, fraudulently elicited, clearly distinguishes t. from theft and misappropriation, offences that presuppose the dissent of the passive subject. The provision of Art. 640 therefore aims to protect, in addition to property, the freedom of consent in transactions involving property.
A considerable number of facts may fall within the figure of t., since the forms that the offence in question may assume are extremely varied. Nevertheless, the better doctrine regards the definition as too narrow: in fact, not a few frauds that would deserve punishment remain excluded from II. Accordingly, the future legislator will have either to broaden the scope of the provision or to supplement it with another of a more general character. Under the provisions of the current Italian code, the objective element of t. requires that: 1) the agent employ artifices or deceitful devices (an artificium would be a disguise of reality, a raggiro an ingenious entanglement of words: doctrine and jurisprudence, however, understand the two expressions in a much broader sense, to the point of admitting that even a simple lie or silence itself may give rise to t.; according to a recent clarification [Antolisei], it must not, however, be one of those minor stratagems that occur very frequently in a given environment and in certain specific relationships—stratagems that the social conscience disapproves of but regards as mere improprieties); 2) these artifices or deceitful devices cause a particular person, namely the victim, to fall into error (it being immaterial that the victim facilitated this through ignorance or negligence); 3) this error gives rise to an act of disposition of property by the deceived person (such act may concern any element of the property and even services); 4) this act results in damage to the victim or perhaps to another person and in an advantage to someone else (there must be damage, that is, a diminution of property, including damage involving things possessing merely sentimental value; the damage must be matched by a profit accruing to another, of any nature whatsoever, provided that it is unjust). The psychological element consists in intent, the existence of which requires that the agent: 1) have voluntarily employed artifices and deceitful devices with awareness of their fraudulent character; 2) have wished to induce the victim into error; 3) have wished the victim to perform an act of disposition of property; 4) have wished to obtain a profit and have been aware of the unjust nature of the profit and of the damage resulting to the deceived person. As a consequence of this multiplicity of elements, mistake of fact finds a broad field of application. From what has been said thus far, it follows that the consummation of t. coincides with the realization of the profit; this has given rise to numerous criticisms. It should be noted, however, that it is not necessary for the agent to obtain precisely the advantage he had anticipated; it is sufficient that he or a third party realize any improvement in property.
According to the most recent trends, the offence in question is also conceivable where the deceived person was tricked while seeking to achieve an unlawful aim. This is because the criminalization of t. is dictated by reasons of social interest.
Under the second paragraph of Art. 640, t. is aggravated (imprisonment from one to five years and a fine of from 24,000 to 120,000 lire) if the act is committed to the detriment of the State or another public entity, or on the pretext of having someone exempted from military service, or by instilling in the injured person fear of an imaginary danger or the erroneous conviction that he must carry out an order of the Authorities.
Arts. 641, 642, and 643 set forth three cases (respectively entitled fraudulent insolvency; fraudulent destruction of one’s own property or mutilation of one’s own person; exploitation of incapable persons) which doctrine customarily designates as minor t. Except in the case of fraudulent insolvency, however, the prescribed penalties are not lighter than those for t.: indeed, in the case of exploitation of incapable persons, imprisonment from two to six years is prescribed in addition to the fine.