Court of Cassation

Anyone who embezzles money from the company can settle their debt by working for free in the future

The solution is valid even if it has not been agreed in writing

by Giampiero Falasca

27 August 2026

Aggiungi Il Sole 24 Ore
ai preferiti su Google

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

An employer and an employee may agree to offset a debt owed by the employee including against future wage claims, by establishing in advance the conditions necessary for the set-off to take effect at a later date. Voluntary set-off, in fact, does not necessarily require both claims to already exist at the time of the agreement. This is the principle reaffirmed by the Court of Cassation, Labour Section, in Order 24617/2026, which was called upon to rule on a dispute concerning wage differences, severance pay and compensation in lieu of notice.

The facts

The case concerned a secretary at a law firm who had obtained an injunction for €94,310.72 in respect of claims accrued during the course of her employment. The firm had lodged an objection, claiming that, between 2014 and 2015, the employee had misappropriated sums totalling 108,169.21 euros. According to the version of events accepted by the trial judges, the parties had subsequently agreed to classify the sums as advances on future wages, which were therefore intended to be gradually offset against her wages.

Judgments on the merits

The District Court and the Court of Appeal found that the existence of this agreement had been proven, and consequently ruled out the existence of the pay differences claimed by the employee. The Regional Court characterised the agreement as a form of improper and ‘de facto’ compensation, not meeting the requirements of statutory compensation.

A key factor in establishing the terms of the agreement was identified in the conduct of the employee. From January 2018 to June 2019, the employee had in fact continued to carry out her duties without receiving her salary, whilst only pension contributions were being paid. The trial judges had considered this conduct to be consistent with the existence of the settlement agreement and with the acknowledgement of the debt owed to the firm.

The Supreme Court’s position

The Court of Cassation also confirms this approach with regard to the evidence. Indeed, the assessment of circumstantial evidence and the selection of the facts from which to infer the existence of the agreement are matters for the trial judge. To challenge the application of Articles 2727 and 2729 of the Civil Code on appeal to the Court of Cassation, it is not sufficient merely to propose a different interpretation of the circumstances; rather, it must be demonstrated that the reasoning based on presumption relied on evidence that did not meet the requirements of seriousness, precision and consistency.

The Court also rules out the possibility that the agreement was required to take written form in its own right of the settlement. This argument had been put forward by the employee, but the trial judges ruled out the settlement nature of the agreement in the absence of the mutual concessions that characterise such a contract.

The key provision of the order, however, concerns Article 1252 of the Civil Code. The employee argued that it was not possible to set off her debt against wage claims that had not yet arisen and could not yet be quantified at the time of the agreement. The Court of Cassation rejected this argument, citing the principle that, in voluntary set-off, the parties may not only arrange for the set-off of existing claims, but also establish derogatory conditions from those provided for by law, so that the set-off takes effect in the future.

On this basis, the employee’s main appeal was dismissed, as was the cross-appeal lodged by the law firm, with full reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Cassation.