Il figlio adulto che pretende somme di denaro dai genitori, ricorrendo a comportamenti violenti, be punished for attempted extortion.
He established the Supreme Court ruling in the number 14 914 of 19 April 2010, deciding on the appeal of a young man in Naples, accused of mistreatment and injury to the detriment of the mother. The boy had been sentenced by the Court of Appeal of Naples, after both parents had confirmed the rapes, consumed as a result of their refusal to hand over the money required.
son defended himself stressing the legitimacy of his claim. In fact, he argued, was then without work, and then the parents, by virtue of the close family ties, they should accommodate your request.
The judges of the Sixth Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, however, have considered it unacceptable that defense argument, saying that "the child that requires parents money by using violent way, commits the offense of attempted extortion, and not the less criminal case governed by Article 393 Criminal Code, it is not inconsistent with the principle according to which the obligation of parents to contribute to the safeguarding of children, never stops, 'ipso facto', with the coming of age by the latter, but endures, unchanged, until the parent interested in finding that termination obligation does not give proof that the child has attained economic independence. " Provisions, said the College Square Cavour, non valgono però per il ricorrente, dal momento che non ha dimostrato che le somme, estorte in modo violento, fossero utilizzate per il suo mantenimento.
He established the Supreme Court ruling in the number 14 914 of 19 April 2010, deciding on the appeal of a young man in Naples, accused of mistreatment and injury to the detriment of the mother. The boy had been sentenced by the Court of Appeal of Naples, after both parents had confirmed the rapes, consumed as a result of their refusal to hand over the money required.
son defended himself stressing the legitimacy of his claim. In fact, he argued, was then without work, and then the parents, by virtue of the close family ties, they should accommodate your request.
The judges of the Sixth Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, however, have considered it unacceptable that defense argument, saying that "the child that requires parents money by using violent way, commits the offense of attempted extortion, and not the less criminal case governed by Article 393 Criminal Code, it is not inconsistent with the principle according to which the obligation of parents to contribute to the safeguarding of children, never stops, 'ipso facto', with the coming of age by the latter, but endures, unchanged, until the parent interested in finding that termination obligation does not give proof that the child has attained economic independence. " Provisions, said the College Square Cavour, non valgono però per il ricorrente, dal momento che non ha dimostrato che le somme, estorte in modo violento, fossero utilizzate per il suo mantenimento.
