1 minute read
Provision Common to the Crimes Aforesaid
This crime refers to “any schedule, ticket, order or other document whatsoever on the presentation of which a payment may be obtained, or a deposit or pledge withdrawn or any delivery of goods effected from any public office or from any bank or other institution established by the Government, or recognised by any public act of the Government” . Such are, for instance, the “cedole” of the “Massa Frumentaria” Government Lotto tickets295, delivery orders used in the Customs Department, Pass Books of the Government Savings Bank, the pawn tickets of the I Fonte di Pietà, etc. In every case, it must be such a document as, by the express provision of the law or regulation, or by the practice regulating the matter it is normally necessary to produce in order to obtain payment, or delivery.
Provision Common to the Crimes Aforesaid
Advertisement
Where any of the crimes aforesaid is committed by a public officer or servant by abuse of his office or employment, the ordinary punishment for the crime is increased by one degree. The reason for the aggravation is obvious:
"La qualità di uffiziale funzionario [...] fa crescere la pena della falsificazione, si' perchè la maggior facilità di commetterla spande maggior sgomento, si perchè vi è più danno morale ad abusare del proprio uffizio”296 .
The same aggravated punishment is applied to any public officer or servant who knowingly re-issues any order for payment or any of the documents mentioned in Section 175, after the payment or delivery of the goods obtainable upon the presentation of such order or document has been affected (Section 176). We have already seen, why, in certain cases only and not in others, the law makes use of such words as "knowingly", "fraudulently", etc., in defining the crime. The re-issue of the order or document may be due to an error or to mere negligence on the part of the public officer: in which case, there would be no crime, but only, in appropriate cases, a liability for damages. So that criminal liability for the crime may arise, the Prosecution
295 Cfr. Rex vs. Psaila, C.C., 13.4.1950; Rex vs Carabott, C.C., 13/12/1932
296 Arabia, op. cit., p. 138
