Art. 132 of the Consolidation act of banking law (TULB d. lgs. 385/1993) punishes the exercise of “microcredit” without being registered into the dedicated list of the operators of this specific sector of financial intermediation with the same sanction established for the abusive exercise of financing The new offence belongs to the category of the offences based on the absence of authorisation; its structure has many elements in common with that of other abuses envisaged by the same TULB (e.g., abusive collecting of savings; abusive banking; abusive emission of electronic currency etc.). The most relevant difference concerns the object of protection. Indeed, the new crime of abusive exercise of microcredit is characterised by the fact that the functions of the Banca d’Italia will be protected in the phase of first implementation, and those of another body in a second moment. Thus, the penal regulation of microcredit contributes to the advancement of the frontier of the penal protection of monitoring functions, by detaching it from the functions of the Banca d’Italia. Such a “new” outpost of criminal law requires a double check: on the one hand, establishing whether the abusive exercise of microcredit justifies the resort to a criminal sanction; on the other hand, establishing whether the functions of this new organism deserve the same protection afforded to the monitoring functions of the Banca d’Italia.

La tutela penale delle funzioni di vigilanza. Il «nuovo» avamposto del microcredito

LOSAPPIO, Giuseppe
2015-01-01

Abstract

Art. 132 of the Consolidation act of banking law (TULB d. lgs. 385/1993) punishes the exercise of “microcredit” without being registered into the dedicated list of the operators of this specific sector of financial intermediation with the same sanction established for the abusive exercise of financing The new offence belongs to the category of the offences based on the absence of authorisation; its structure has many elements in common with that of other abuses envisaged by the same TULB (e.g., abusive collecting of savings; abusive banking; abusive emission of electronic currency etc.). The most relevant difference concerns the object of protection. Indeed, the new crime of abusive exercise of microcredit is characterised by the fact that the functions of the Banca d’Italia will be protected in the phase of first implementation, and those of another body in a second moment. Thus, the penal regulation of microcredit contributes to the advancement of the frontier of the penal protection of monitoring functions, by detaching it from the functions of the Banca d’Italia. Such a “new” outpost of criminal law requires a double check: on the one hand, establishing whether the abusive exercise of microcredit justifies the resort to a criminal sanction; on the other hand, establishing whether the functions of this new organism deserve the same protection afforded to the monitoring functions of the Banca d’Italia.
2015
Art. 132 des Einheitstextes der Bankengesetze (TULB GVD 385/1993) unterstellt den, der in Ermangelung einer Eintragung in das eigene Verzeichnis dieser Finanzierungsvermittler, „Mikrokredite“ vergibt, derselben Sanktion, die für die unerlaubte Ausübung der Finanzierungsvergabe vorgesehen ist. Die neue Straftat angehört der Kategorie derjenigen unerlaubten Handlungen, die sich durch das Fehlen einer vorgeschriebenen Ermächtigung kennzeichnet; ihre Struktur weist viele Elemente auf, die auch den anderen, im selben TULB vorgesehenen Figuren von Missbrauch gemein sind (z.B. missbräuchliche Tätigkeit der Ersparnissammlung; unerlaubte Bankentätigkeit; unerlaubte Ausgabe von digitalem Geld, usw.). Der bedeutendste Unterschied dazu betrifft das Schutzobjekt. Die neue Straftat der unerlaubten Vergabe von Mikrokrediten hebt sich nämlich dadurch hervor, dass sie in einer ersten Phase die Funktionen der Banca d’Italia, in der weiteren Folge aber diejenigen eines anderen Organismus schützen wird. Die strafrechtliche Regulierung des Mikrokredites, losgelöst von den Funktionen der Banca d’Italia, trägt somit zu einer Erweiterung des strafrechtlichen Schutzes der Überwachungsfunktionen bei. Dieser „neue“ Vorposten des Strafrechtes bedarf jedoch einer doppelten Überprüfung: einerseits gilt es festzustellen, ob die unerlaubte Vergabe von Mikrokrediten die strafrechtliche Sanktionierung rechtfertigt; anderseits ist zu prüfen, ob es notwendig ist, dass die Funktionen des neuen Organismus den selben Schutz erfahren wie die Überwachungsfunktion der Banca d’Italia.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11586/144166
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact