The Preliminary Investigations Judge (GIP) of the Court of Trieste has recently ruled on an opposition to a request for dismissal in criminal proceedings for false accusation, providing an interesting clarification regarding the subjective element of the offence.<\/p>\n
The case originated from a collaboration between a training company and an external professional entrusted with managing promotional activities and the company\u2019s social media channels. Upon termination of the relationship, the professional refused to provide the login credentials for the social media accounts created for the company. The company\u2019s legal representative therefore filed a complaint with the Postal Police.<\/p>\n
Following the investigations, the proceedings were dismissed. The professional subsequently filed a criminal complaint for false accusation against the legal representative, alleging that she was aware of his innocence. However, the Public Prosecutor also requested dismissal of this second proceeding, which was then challenged by the complainant.<\/p>\n
During the opposition phase\u2014also as a result of the defence arguments put forward by the Firm\u2014it emerged, on the one hand, that the social media page used by the company was different from the one for which the credentials had been requested, and, on the other hand, that the correspondence exchanged between the parties (including through their respective legal counsel) demonstrated that the legal representative was, rightly or wrongly, firmly convinced that an offence had occurred.<\/p>\n
The GIP therefore ordered the dismissal of the case, excluding the existence of the offence of false accusation. Indeed, as clarified by the Court of Trieste, the offence cannot be established in the absence of full and conscious certainty of the accused person\u2019s innocence: mere doubt or mistake is insufficient, as it is necessary that the agent acts with full awareness of the falsity of the accusation.<\/p>\n