We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
22 May 2020
A 10 April 2020 Supreme Court decision found that an employee who copies computer data stored on a company laptop entrusted to them for work purposes and subsequently returns the computer with said data deleted and the hard drive formatted is guilty of embezzlement pursuant to Article 646 of the Criminal Code.
Before resigning from his job to be hired by a competitor company, the defendant returned a company laptop with a formatted hard drive (which caused the computer to malfunction) and no trace of the company data that had been originally stored on it.
Further, the employee had copied the data from the company laptop, some of which was later found on another computer used by the defendant.
The employee was acquitted on appeal of the crime referred to in Article 635quater of the Criminal Code (ie, damage to a computer or a telematic system), but was sentenced for embezzlement pursuant to Article 646 of the Criminal Code. He subsequently appealed, claiming that the judges had made a mistake by qualifying computer data as a tangible asset and therefore susceptible to embezzlement.
The Supreme Court justifiably diverged from predominant case law, which considers computer data to lack the physicality typical of tangible assets (ie, the object of such conduct as referred to in Article 646 of the Criminal Code).
The judgment highlighted the following points with regard to computer files:
These characteristics confirm the logical assumption of the possibility that computer data can be the object of theft and appropriation.
Moreover, the same case law has set out the criminal notion of tangible assets through the identification of some essential characteristics (ie, the materiality and physicality of the object), which must be definable in space and susceptible to transfer from one place to another, thus making possible one of the typical characteristics of the seizure of property (ie, the removal of an object from the control of its owner or rights holder).
Having clarified, therefore, that a computer file constitutes a tangible asset, the court stated that in order for embezzlement to exist, computer data needs to move from being a temporary possession (acquired as a result of contractual or negotiated agreements with the obligation to return it) to a definitive possession. However, there must also be evidence of clear and permanent misappropriation of such data after its deletion from a company computer. Only in such cases will such actions be considered property theft.
The Supreme Court decision underlines the risk of copying files from company devices and deleting them from the computer system on which they were stored.
For further information on this topic please contact Luca Daffra at Ichino Brugnatelli e Associati by telephone (+39 (0)2 48193249) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org). The Ichino Brugnatelli e Associati website can be accessed at www.ichinobrugnatelli.it.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.