In criminal law, one of the most common mistakes is to assume that, in order for the crime of stalking to be established, it is necessary to prove a genuine "persecutory intent". In reality, what matters is not the offender's declared intention, but the concrete effect produced on the victim.
The principle is clear: for the offence to be made out, what counts is a persistent state of anxiety and a significant alteration of daily habits. This principle has been reaffirmed several times by the Italian Supreme Court, which has clarified that the offence of acts of stalking under article 612-bis of the Italian Penal Code is established precisely where there are repeated, invasive and destabilising forms of conduct, regardless of the justifications put forward by the defendant.
A case I handled personally
In one of the cases I handled personally, a client of mine — whom we shall call M. — came to my firm after months of persistent behaviour by an acquaintance, R., who kept contacting her every day with phone calls, messages and requests to meet.
The man claimed he had no persecutory intent, justifying his actions as mere attempts at clarification and, in some cases, as needs linked to professional matters. However, the reality was very different: my client had begun to radically change her habits, avoiding the places she usually went to, limiting her phone use and living in a constant state of anxiety.
The defence strategy: concrete impact, not declared intention
We built the defence by focusing precisely on this central element: not the offender's declared intention, but the concrete impact on the victim's life. The evidence gathered — messages, recordings, witness statements — highlighted a repeated and non-occasional pattern of conduct, fully capable of constituting the offence of stalking.
The judge recognised that acts of stalking had occurred, confirming that such conduct cannot be reduced to mere harassment under article 660 of the Italian Penal Code when it produces such serious and long-lasting consequences.
A "work-related purpose" does not justify obsessive behaviour
One particularly relevant aspect, also emerging from the case law of the Italian Supreme Court, is that not even an alleged "work-related purpose" can justify invasive and obsessive behaviour. Even where contacts arise from apparently lawful reasons, they become criminally relevant the moment they exceed the threshold of tolerability and impinge on the victim's peace of mind and personal freedom.
Two technical aspects that are often underestimated
From a technical-legal standpoint, it is important to know that, for the offence to be established, the repetition of the conduct is decisive — including, where appropriate, episodes predating the introduction of the rule, provided they form part of a unitary persecutory design.
Another often-underestimated element concerns the criminal complaint: in stalking cases characterised by repeated threats, it can become irrevocable, with significant consequences for the defence strategy.
Conclusions: act promptly
This case shows that stalking is not tied to labels or declared intentions, but to concrete and verifiable facts. When a person changes the way they live their life out of fear, we are already beyond the threshold of mere harassment: we are in the midst of an offence that requires immediate and qualified legal protection.
In such situations, acting promptly makes it possible not only to stop the conduct, but also to build a solid defence and obtain an effective outcome in court.