Prison sentence and a 3 million fine for the migrant-smuggler, even though he is not a people-trafficker
A person who agreed to repair engines in exchange for a free crossing to Italia has been convicted of aiding and abetting illegal immigration
Key points
Four years and two months’ imprisonment and a fine of three million euros for the migrant smuggler, who was responsible for repairing engines in the event of a breakdown, as a form of payment to cover the cost of his journey, even though he was not involved in the criminal organisation’s agreement aimed at smuggling migrants.
The Court of Cassation has upheld the sentence of imprisonment combined with a hefty fine for aiding and abetting illegal immigration. The judges of the Court of Cassation, relying on the testimony of several migrants, who had identified the appellant as the person responsible for repairing the boat’s engine when breakdowns occurred during the crossing, affirm his liability for the offence, due to the indirect benefit that the ‘mechanic’ had derived from his services: the journey without paying for a ticket.
A job as a mechanic in exchange for a free trip
An advantage that is certainly negated by the astronomical fine imposed on him, under the law which stipulates the payment of 15,000 euros for every migrant who enters the country illegally, including through the collaboration of those who, whilst not part of the trafficking organisation, facilitate the illegal entry of foreign nationals.
Further evidence against the defendant was his Arabic language and identity – just like those of the boat’s drivers – and the undisputed fact that he intervened two or three times during the journey to restore the engine. This played a key role in the successful completion of the crossing, by virtue of which the defendant enjoyed a freedom of movement that the other migrants did not have, moving between the engine room and the wheelhouse.
The figure of the migrant smuggler who is not a trafficker
According to the Court of Cassation, there is no contradiction between the exclusion of the aggravating circumstance of acting for profit – as already established by the court of first instance – and aiding and abetting, as the appellant had agreed to fulfil the role assigned to him by the organisation in order to reach the Italian coast, as indirect remuneration for his involvement.
