Minor lawyer peddling drugs. Milan.
Minors and drug dealing.
From organized activity to detention for personal use.
We have the first normative reference in the Italian Law on the subject of narcotic substances with L. 396 / 1923, which subjected the sale and consumption of morphine, cocaine and other psychotropic preparations to restrictions.
In the 1939, the Rocco Code instituted the crime of "illegal trade in narcotic drugs" or that of "facilitating the use of drugs".
Only a few years later, the Royal Decree Law of 15 January 1934 n.151, abrogated and modified the provisional legislation, until, in the post-war period, it reached L. 1041 / 54., Of a decidedly and strictly prohibitionist nature.
However, the main turning point de iure condendo surely goes back to the 1990 in the field of drugs.
The TU 309 / 90, after decades of exegetical uncertainties, had the great merit of bringing together and reworking both the L. 685 / 1975 and the L. 162 / 1990, as well as numerous implementing Decrees promulgated by the Ministry of Health.
Lo "Peddling" was finally regulated, in a complete manner, by art. 73 of the DPR 9 Ottobre 1990, n.309 (Consolidated text of the laws on the subject of narcotics and psychotropic substances, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation of the relative states of drug addiction), entitled “production, trafficking and detention of illicit drugs and psychotropic substances ”And foresaw: "Anyone, without the authorization pursuant to art. 17, cultivates, produces, manufactures, extracts, refines, sells, offers, sells, distributes, trades, transports, procures to others, passes, passes or ships in transit, deliveries for any purpose as per table I provided for by art. 14, is punished with imprisonment from six to twenty years and with the fine from euro 26.000 to 260.000 "
Increasingly widespread delinquent / delinquent phenomena, especially among subjects in the developmental age, the possession of drugs in order to sell has undergone a further change with the Legislative Decree of 1 March 2018 n.21 and by the Decree of the Ministry of health of the following 12 October 2018:
primary consequence: the tightening of the sanctioning response.
In fact, more and more kids become real Puscher.
The motivations? The economic need and / or a social / emotional discomfort are certainly primary.
The fact is that we are also witnessing the increase in the use of these substances.
Last year the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) placed our country in third place among the European Union for the use of cannabis. Ranking that we scale quickly if we limit our analysis to consumers aged between 15 and 24 years only.
However, the operating methods continue to follow an extremely variable phenomenology.
It passes from the consumer, who advantageously buys a certain amount of substance and sells it to his schoolmates in a completely disorganized and sporadic manner or to activities rooted in a pyramidal, hierarchical structure (so-called marketplaces).
While on the one hand the primary objective of the Legislator remains surely to bring a swift and very severe response towards the drug dealer, on the other we try not to forget the principles of: prevention, treatment and not marginalization of the drug addict.
A further problem, not yet fully resolved, lies in the chemical and juridical qualification of the substance of abuse (with a fundamental practical value)
In the 2013 the Legislator, with the DL n.146 of the 2013, converted into law by the L. n.10 / 2014) completes another fundamental step of interpretation on the discipline intervening on the fifth paragraph of the art. 73.
We are actually witnessing the transformation of the extenuating circumstance provided for and regulated in the fifth paragraph in an autonomous offense with a different, and certainly less damaging, framework.
The paragraph 5 of the art. 73 thus provides: "Unless the fact constitutes a more serious offense, anyone commits any of the facts provided for in this article which, due to the means, method or circumstances of the action or to the quality and quantity of the substances, is minor, is punished with imprisonment from six months to four years and a fine from that 1.032 to euro 10.329 "
The Supreme Court of Cassation, with the sentence n.13982 / 2018, specified in the details, what should be the criteria of distinction between the case referred to in paragraph 5 and the primary one, which cannot be carried out through a simple "subtraction" on the done.
In other words, in reference to the methods and circumstances of the action it cannot in any way imply that the continuity of the conduct or the performance of activities, in some way organized, element otherwise such as to prevent limit the configurability of the minor association hypothesis.
The qualitative and quantitative data on narcotic substances, in the presence of behaviors involving the possession or transfer of significant quantities, may not be decisive, if not corroborated by other data, such as:
- The offensiveness
- The sources of supply
- The relationships between subjects
- The complex organization or not
- The presence of a market square
All this implies a careful evaluation by the Judge of merit, who cannot limit himself to a generic evaluation of the fact, but will have to examine all the possible variants of the case (Cass. Pen. Section IV n. 46495 / 2017)
It goes without saying that the primary datum to refer to will be the quantity of drugs held by the offender, depending on whether or not it exceeds the weight data in relation to the specificity of the place of commission of the fact.
It is the so-called "small shop" that is characterized by a lower scope of business of drug dealer, with a reduced circulation of goods and money, as well as with limited earnings (Cass. Pen. Section VI, n.15642 / 15)
Small shop or organized activity: differences
Paradox: in a diabolical reasoning, any peddling activity, even the most rudimentary, from the minor who gives a minimum quantity to the schoolmate to the pucher in the marketplace, it foresees the presence of an organized criminal activity, at least in its primordial phase.
Just think of where the substance in possession comes from and how it entered our country.
The only exception could be offered by the grower who legally buys the seed and then illegally produces and resells the substance.
But there seems to be an extremely limited number of cases.
The fact is that the Legislator himself, above all for the purposes of the sentence to be administered to the offender, makes a clear distinction between the individual drug dealer and the organization at the time of the drug dealing.
According to the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, the additional and distinctive element of the crime pursuant to art. 74 dpr 309 of 1990 with respect to the case pursuant to art. 110-81 cpv cp and art. 73 dpr 309 / 90 must be identified in the character of the criminal agreement, which only in the association offense contemplates the commission of a series not previously determined of crimes and in the permanence of the associative link between the participants, which, even outside the individual crimes planned, ensure their lasting and indefinite availability over time to pursue the criminal association program.
The organizational element is therefore distinctive.
It should be noted that the conduct punishable by way of association aimed at the business of dealing cannot be reduced and coincide with a simple agreement of the wills, but must consist of a quid pluris, which is embodied in the actual predisposition of a stably organized structure, which allows, also through this practice, the spread of hegemony.
The necessity therefore arises that the subjects, in the different role, carry out activities directed to the same univocal purpose.
The existence of a stable organization with coordination of people and use of means emerges:
- From the rigidly hierarchical relationship between the associates and the division of tasks
- From the preparation of shifts for the activity of dealing
- From the contacts between the laborers and their leaders
- Weekly pay for the various pushers
Transfer of drugs to a minor:
Ex art. 1 lett. A) art.80 TU 309 / 1990 "The penalties provided for the crimes referred to in the art. 73 TU 309 / 90 have increased from a third to a half in cases where drugs or psychotropic substances are delivered or in any case destined for a minor person"
Cass. Sec. pen. III 16 December 2015 n.49571 reiterated that the aggravating circumstance mentioned above was also extended to the possible use of a pusher under eighteen, who, although admitted to the role of mere executor of the delivery, could split the envelope and use part of the dose for himself.
Attention to the minor that we also find in art. 82 co 2 TU pursuant to which "the penalty (referred to in co 1) is increased if the offense is committed against a person of a minor age or inside or in adjacency of schools of all levels, youth communities or barracks ".
The eighteen-year-old prefers the consumption of synthetic drugs such as ectasy and lysergic acid, but cannabis remains the most widespread substance.
To date 450 thousand minors usually smoke hemp.
Question: Is it a crime to sell cannabis derivatives such as inflorescences unless they are free of doping efficacy?
The Joint Sections of the Court of Cassation of 10 July 2019, n. 30475
The question submitted to the attention of the Ermellini was the following: “If the conducts different from the cultivation of hemp of the varieties referred to in the catalog indicated in art. 1, paragraph 2, of law 2 December 2016, n. 241 and, in particular, the marketing of cannabis L, whether or not they fall, and if so, in what limits, within the scope of applicability of the aforementioned law and are, therefore, criminally irrelevant pursuant to such legislation ”.
The jurisprudential guidelines
On the subject two opposing jurisprudential orientations are confronted, a first one tending to exclude that the law of 2016 allows the marketing of derivatives from the cultivation of cannabis sativa L (Criminal Court, Section III, 10 January 2019, No. 17387; Court of Cassation, Section IV, 19 September 2018, No. 57703; Cass. pen., Section VI, 27 November 2018, n. 56737) and another which, from the legality of the cultivation of cannabis sativa L, according to the law of 2016, leads to the lawfulness also of the marketing of derivatives such as leaves and inflorescences, provided they contain a percentage of active principle lower than 0,6% (Cass. pen., Section VI, 29 November 2018, n. 4920).
There is, then, a third, intermediate orientation, which supports the lawfulness of the products derived from the cultivation of hemp allowed by the novel of 2016, provided that they present a percentage of THC not higher than 0,2% (Cass. Pen., Section III , 7 December 2018, No. 10809).
The decision of the joint Sections
According to the United Sections, the cultivation of cannabis and the marketing of the products obtained from it, according to the textual list contained in Table II, in the absence of any threshold value previously identified by the penal legislator with respect to the percentage of THC, fall within the scope of theart. 73, paragraphs 1 and 4 TU Stup. This case, in fact, incriminates, in addition to the cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, refining, sale, offer or sale, transfer or receipt for any reason, distribution, trade , the purchase, export, import, transport, the fact of procuring for others, sending, passing or shipping in transit and delivery for any purpose or in any case unlawful possession outside the hypothesis of personal use, of the drugs referred to in Table II, of theart. 14 TU Stup.
Il range of tolerance in which there is no criminal relevance, or the percentage between 0,2 and 0,6%, applies only to eliminate the farmer when during the maturation the crop used in a lawful way ends up exceeding the threshold values indicated by the legislation.
The legislation only considers the cultivation of hemp of the varieties admitted and registered in the common catalog of varieties of agricultural plant species lawful, according to the provisions of art. 17 of the 2002 / 53 / CE directive of the 13 June 2002 of the European Council, allowing a use for food, cosmetics, green building purposes and for the reclamation of polluted sites.
Where is the threshold between what is lawful (possession intended for personal use) and illicit (possession for drug dealing purposes)?
With the sentence n.27346 / 13 The Supreme Court - Quarta takes the opportunity to reaffirm the validity of those hermeneutical criteria, which make it possible to trace back a situation of possession of drugs, in the wake of non-punishment, when it is configured for use exclusively personal.
The salient points of law of the ruling are substantiated in three observations.
La L. 49 / 2006:
- despite having adopted a semantic formulation of the whole "unhappy" - "does not contain elements of substantial novelty with respect to the previously existing legislation, which punished criminally the possession of drugs, which was not aimed at personal use ”;
- has not introduced at all, towards the person who is caught in the possession of quantities that exceed the table limits
- a) "Nor a presumption, whether purely relative, of the destination of the drug held for non-personal use",
- b) “Neither a reversal of the burden of proof, constitutionally inadmissible pursuant to art. 25 Cost paragraph 2 and art. 27 Cost. Comma 2 ";
- it has also not innovated at all "The parameters indicated to appreciate the destination not exclusively for personal use”Of the substance held, already adopted in the past.
The Court of legitimacy, after having set out the aforementioned premises, emphasizes, below, two other legal arguments, which appear to be in relation to the present case.
- A) Firstly, the parameters given by the quantity, method of presentation or other circumstances of the action, "Should not be considered individually or in isolation". (The presence of even one of them is not sufficient to confer criminal conduct automatically on the conduct).
- B) To this end, referring to the typical example of exceeding the table limit, the Supreme Court highlights that this situation it is not, by itself alone, symptomatic of not exclusively personal use of drugs.
In order to be able to support the illegality of detention therefore, the situation of exceeding the aforementioned table limit must be supported and corroborated by the actual existence of someone among the other evaluative paradigms that theart. 73/ 1 bis DPR 309 / 90 It expected.
In order to arrive at an unfavorable prognosis for the accused, it appears, in fact, necessary that also the presentation methods and other circumstances of the action they tend to convincingly exclude a destination for strictly personal consumption.
Having said this, it is clear that the principle that always places the burden of proving the offense on the public prosecution remains unchanged.
The present case concerns a person found in possession of gr. 7,5 of heroin and who had been sentenced - subject to the granting of a mitigating circumstance with special effect envisaged by theart. 73 paragraph 5 ° dpr 309 / 90.
based on the decision by the Judges there were in fact two reasons:
The first consisted in excluding that the quantity found could integrate a stock for its own use, since, according to the judges of merit, the accused - for his good economic skills - would have had no need to set up substantial stocks.
The second concerned, instead, the scarce convenience of the purchase, given the poor quality of the drug.
The two alleged circumstances, together with the manner of conduct held by the accused, would have deposed - in the territorial court's opinion - for the destination, even if only partial, to third parties of the drug.
The intervention of the Supreme Court defined the deductions of the appellate judges as absolutely illogical when they claim:
- that the existence of a good economic capacity, a concrete condition incompatible with the will to make a purchase, determined by a favorable price;
- that it is not convenient to buy drugs that are of poor quality.
In the first case, in fact, the choice of the individual to dispose of his own money, when this option is carried out freely and without any kind of generalizations, does not seem reasonably to be questioned.
In the second case, instead, the possible poor quality of the doping compendium constitutes information that the buyer acquires hypothetically and only ex post.
Furthermore, any condition of recidivism is overcome by the demonstration of the subject's state of drug addiction.
The only drawback of the sentence in question lies in the fact that it is used as a parameter concerning the active substance contained in the 7,5 grams of drug in question, the criterion of average daily dose, yes to derive 48 average daily dose.
In fact, it is observed that, in dealing with hypotheses of undeniable custodial behavior, the correct hermeneutical canon should have been that of maximum quantity that can be held.
In fact, it is common ground that, while the average daily dose (equal to 25 mg. of active ingredient) appears to be an original instrument, of an interpretative nature, functional for quantifying the spreading capacity of a sample of drugs, in relation to which there is the certainty of a destination for drug dealing towards third parties, the maximum quantity that can be held is a complex construction parameter (given by the average daily dose multiplied by twenty) which should only be used in the presence of inert pipelines, such as possession or cultivation.
It also helps the orientation mentioned, the consideration that the motivation of the sentence in question, when it states that the exceeding of the table limit, by itself alone, it determines the penal relevance of the detention, undoubtedly uses the parameter of the maximum quantity that can be held, which, not surprisingly, coincides with 500 mg. of active ingredient.
The Cecatiello Law Firm advises its clients for the best management of juvenile criminal proceedings.
Cecatiello Law Firm, Milan. Marriage lawyer, divorce lawyer, specialized in family law, child rights, juvenile criminal. Contact us.