12 Oct he cons

The crime of fraud is intended to protect the assets and the free formation of consent within the taxable person. More specifically, Punishability does not derive only from damage to the individual's financial sphere, already protected by the regulations on contracts, but also of the public interest so that the duty of loyalty and correctness and the freedom of choice of the contracting parties are not undermined. However, the mere violation of such a duty is not enough, for the commission of the crime, actual damage to another's property is also required, resulting in an unfair profit. The alleged crime in question represents a contract crime, characterized by the illicit behavior manifested during the formation of the agreement. Given the precise literal formulation, it is also a limited form crime. In fact, who is punished, using tricks or deception, misleads someone, resulting in a transfer of assets in favor of the guilty party. By artifice we mean the simulation or dissimulation of reality, in order to mislead the taxable person. By deception, however, we mean any machination aimed at exchanging the false for the true. Despite the aforementioned natural, necessarily causal nature of the crime, jurisprudence has gradually ended up devaluing the role of the identified conduct, in order to also include mendacity or silence, when, for the concrete methods, appear capable of deceiving. Even malicious silence on the part of those who have the duty to inform the other contracting party about certain characteristics of the deal can therefore constitute the crime of fraud. The tricks or deceptions must be capable of misleading the victim. The error can fall indifferently on the reasons, on one of the various elements listed in the article 1429 c.c. Or on any aspect of factual reality that determined the contractual will of the taxable person. The act of disposition of assets is a constitutive element of the crime, reason for which the existence of the crime is denied if the deceived person does not actually have the representative powers to affect the financial sphere of the representative. The prevailing jurisprudence also believes that fraud occurs even where the intent only affects the execution phase of the transaction, so that the artifices or deceptions are capable of producing the unfair profit and the contextual damage. Damage means an actual financial loss in terms of loss of profit and emerging damage, while profit also means an advantage of a non-pecuniary nature, as in the case of mere psychological satisfaction deriving from a desire for revenge or personal revenge. As regards the subjective element, fraud is punishable as general malice, with consequent irrelevance of the objectives pursued. The second paragraph regulates various hypotheses of specific aggravating circumstances, justified by the particular qualification of the taxable person or by the particular methods of conduct.