'Usurer' also the taker

The moneylender's collection agent is also liable for usury and not for the more 'mild' actual aiding and abetting. This was established by the second penal section of the Court of Cassation (sentence 1071/2025), rejecting the appeal by the collector. For the defence, however, the defendant had not participated in the usury as he had not taken part in the agreement and, among other things, had not even completed the task of collecting the money, entrusted to him by his father.

Usury, according to the defenders, was only consummated between the contracting parties through the covenant, subsequent conduct of third parties being extraneous. The Court, however, rejected the appeal and explained: usury is a crime of prolonged consummation and takes the form of both the mere agreement of interest and the actual payment of interest in one or more instalments. The payment, therefore, is an integral part of the offence and prolongs the duration of the usury. Therefore, anyone who, like the applicant, approaches the victim by demanding payment after others have obtained it, regardless of success, contributes to the commission of the offence of usury. In other words, whoever enters into a sequence of collections - even if he does not complete the one entrusted to him - is defensible in concurrence. Previous collections of money, in fact, qualify the conduct as a progressively consummating offence.