By judgment no. 10451 of 18 March 2026, the Second Criminal Division of the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) addressed a case of audiovisual piracy carried out through the marketing of smart cards and access codes to illegal IPTV platforms. The Court examined the following issue: on what basis can liability be attributed to a reseller who merely distributes such “devices” to the public, without materially taking part in the technical phase of circumventing encrypted systems?
The case and the defence’s arguments
The Court of Appeal of Lecce had upheld the conviction of a defendant found jointly liable for the offences under Articles 615-ter, 640-ter of the Italian Criminal Code and Article 171-ter of Law No. 633/1941, for having purchased and resold access codes to a pirate IPTV platform to approximately twenty private users.
The defence sought a reclassification of the conduct under the less serious offence set out in Article 615-quater of the Criminal Code (unlawful possession and distribution of access codes), arguing that the defendant had merely engaged in the “purchase and resale” of smart cards and remained extraneous to the upstream organisation, which was complex, pre-existing, and unknown to him.
The Supreme Court’s decision
The Supreme Court held that a person may be held liable as a co-perpetrator of the offences of unauthorised access to an IT system (Article 615-ter of the Criminal Code) and computer fraud (Article 640-ter of the Criminal Code) where, despite not directly intervening in the technical phase of breaching the systems of audiovisual rights holders, such person resells pirate access codes and smart cards for profit, where that conduct forms an integral part of a single criminal plan, carried out in coordination with those responsible for the unauthorised access, and is functionally aimed at enabling unlawful access to encrypted services by a plurality of users.
The most significant aspect of the ruling lies in the legal classification of the reseller’s conduct. The Court does not introduce a separate offence, nor does it rely on the notion of criminal association; rather, it applies the general rules on participation in a criminal offence, qualifying the reseller as a principal offender.
From the perspective of causal contribution, the Court expressly rejects the defence’s argument that the contribution must be “indispensable, essential and necessary”. For the purposes of participation, it is sufficient that the conduct provides even a facilitating causal contribution, provided that it is accompanied by awareness of the overall criminal scheme.
This is where the reasoning acquires particular practical relevance: the marketing of pirate smart cards is not an autonomous and neutral segment, but rather the final stage of an overall conduct aimed at defrauding rights holders. Without resellers, the upstream unauthorised access and computer fraud would lose their economic value, and therefore their very purpose.
Conclusion
The judgment forms part of a broader line of case law strengthening the scope of criminal protection afforded to audiovisual rights holders. From a practical standpoint, it undermines one of the most common defence strategies in similar proceedings, namely the attempt to isolate the final segment of the distribution chain in order to avoid the more severe penalties associated with Articles 615-ter and 640-ter of the Criminal Code.
Those who knowingly participate in the criminal plan—even by merely distributing its benefits to end users—are held liable for the entire scheme. This judicial approach complements the administrative and precautionary tools currently available, contributing to a more integrated response to the phenomenon of audiovisual piracy.
Lawyer Lorenzo Pinci