The burden of proof in counterfeiting and receiving stolen goods offenses: an exemplary judgment in luxury criminal law

The burden of proof in counterfeiting and receiving stolen goods offenses: an exemplary judgment in luxury criminal law

Court of Macerata, judgment no. 158/2024 – Judge Potetti

In the luxury sector, where brand value is everything, the line between legitimate trade and criminal offense can become thin. With judgment no. 158/2024, the Court of Macerata offered a fundamental contribution on the matter, acquitting the owner of an e-commerce platform specializing in the rental and resale of designer handbags, accused of counterfeiting (art. 474 c.p.) and receiving stolen goods (art. 648 c.p.).

The ruling strongly reaffirms the principles of guarantee in economic criminal law: the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and intent cannot be presumed, not even in the face of non-original products.

The case: from media investigation to trial

The events originated from a complaint by a customer who, after purchasing a Chanel bag online, discovered its non-originality through the fashion house itself. The case, amplified by an investigative television report, led to the seizure of 61 bags (including brands such as Chanel, Céline, Longchamp) and 11 authenticity certificates found to be stolen.

Expert appraisals confirmed that some bags were counterfeit and that the certificates, although genuine, had been matched with fake products. The defendant was therefore indicted for possession for sale of counterfeit products and receiving stolen certificates.

The defensive strategy: the value of documentary evidence

The acquittal was obtained thanks to a meticulous defensive investigation. The defense reconstructed the lawfulness of the defendant's actions by producing a solid body of documentary evidence:

• Purchase receipts and foreign invoices (European retailers and duty-free);
• Bank statements attesting to the traceability of payments;
• Commercial correspondence with suppliers;
• Theft reports filed by the defendant herself at unsuspected times.

These elements demonstrated the consistency and good faith of the entrepreneur, dismantling the accusatory hypothesis.

The sophisticated fake and the absence of intent

One of the most innovative passages of the judgment concerns the subjective element of the crime. For receiving stolen goods, the Court excluded intent (even eventual intent), as there was no proof that the defendant was aware of the stolen origin of the certificates.

For counterfeiting, the judge highlighted the quality of the seized goods. The expert spoke of sophisticated fakes, capable of meticulously reproducing materials and logos. Precisely this extreme fidelity to the original played in favor of the defense: the error regarding the genuineness of the item was plausible even for an operator in the sector, thus excluding the awareness necessary for criminal conviction.

A precedent for the luxury market

The decision of the Court of Macerata constitutes a significant precedent for the second-hand luxury market. In a context characterized by often informal dynamics, the judgment clarifies that:

1. Criminal liability does not automatically derive from the quality of the fake;
2. Specific intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt;
3. Documentation and traceability are the winning weapon to demonstrate the entrepreneur's good faith.