Practical guide

How to draft a criminal complaint for property defacing under Art. 639 c.p. with AI

3 min read · Updated September 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa

The crime of defacing and soiling property (deturpamento e imbrattamento di cose altrui), provided for by Art. 639 of the Italian Criminal Code, protects the aesthetic integrity and cleanliness of movable and immovable assets. Drafting the criminal complaint requires precision in describing the conduct and adherence to the procedural deadlines introduced by recent reforms.

In brief

To draft a criminal complaint under Art. 639 c.p., one must accurately identify the offended property, describe the conduct (e.g., spray painting, illegal postings), and explicitly express the will to prosecute the offender. Except for cases involving historical or public buildings where ex officio prosecution applies, the complaint must be filed within three months of learning about the fact. edit.legal assists lawyers in automating the document structure and verifying legal requirements.

The steps

1.
Categorization of conduct and distinction from criminal damage
The first step is to verify that the conduct constitutes defacing or soiling (deturpamento o imbrattamento) rather than criminal damage (danneggiamento) under Art. 635 c.p. The difference lies in the reversibility: Art. 639 c.p. applies when the alteration is temporary or easily removable, without permanent destruction or deterioration of the asset. The document must minutely describe the state of the premises or object before and after the offender's action, specifying the materials used for the soiling.
2.
Verification of prosecution regime and deadlines
Following the Cartabia Reform, most cases under Art. 639 c.p. are subject to prosecution upon complaint (querela). The filing deadline is three months from the day the victim becomes aware of the fact constituting the crime. However, prosecution is ex officio (procedibilità d'ufficio) if the act is committed against assets of historical or artistic interest, or public buildings. Correctly qualifying the nature of the asset is essential to determine if a formal complaint is required.
3.
Identification of the victim and the complainant
The complaint must contain the complete personal details of the victim (persona offesa), who may be the owner, possessor, or holder of the asset. If the complainant acts as the legal representative of an entity or a condominium, they must attach proof of representative powers (e.g., assembly minutes or company registry certificate). In this section, it is also appropriate to indicate the appointment of a trusted lawyer (difensore di fiducia) with a special power of attorney (procura speciale) for filing and potential opposition to dismissal.
4.
Statement of facts and evidentiary support
The document must narrate the facts chronologically and in detail. It is essential to attach photographic evidence showing the defacement, any cost estimates for restoration, and the names of eyewitnesses. If the offender is unknown, the complaint will be filed against unknown persons (contro ignoti), urging the investigating authorities to review surveillance footage or other identifying elements. Descriptive precision assists the Public Prosecutor (Pubblico Ministero) during the preliminary investigation phase for correct legal classification.
5.
Expression of punitive intent and formal clauses
An essential element of the complaint is the explicit request for punishment (istanza di punizione): the complainant must expressly declare the intention to prosecute the responsible party. It is advisable to include a request to be notified in case of a dismissal request under Art. 408 c.p.p. and an opposition to the conclusion of proceedings via a criminal conviction decree (decreto penale di condanna) without compensation for damages. These clauses ensure the victim's greater participation in the criminal proceedings and better protection of the right to financial recovery.

Legal basis: Art. 639 c.p.Art. 120 c.p.Art. 336 c.p.p.Art. 337 c.p.p.Art. 408 c.p.p.

Mistakes to avoid

Filing the document past the three-month deadline from the discovery of the fact for complaint-based cases.
Confusing soiling with aggravated damage, risking an incorrect legal classification.
Forgetting the explicit request for punishment, turning the document into a mere informative report.
Failure to attach representative powers for complainants other than natural persons.
Omitting the request for notification in case of dismissal under Art. 408 c.p.p.

Frequently asked questions

What happens if the defacing concerns a listed building?

If the defacing affects assets of historical or artistic interest, the crime is prosecuted ex officio and penalties are aggravated. In this case, reporting to the authorities is not subject to the three-month deadline.

Is it possible to withdraw the complaint after filing?

Yes, a complaint under Art. 639 c.p. can be revoked through a formal withdrawal (remissione di querela), provided the case is subject to complaint-based prosecution and not ex officio.

What is the difference between Art. 639 and Art. 635 c.p.?

Art. 635 (criminal damage) implies destruction or deterioration that makes the asset unusable, while Art. 639 (defacing) is limited to an aesthetic or cleanliness offense.

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 18 September 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction

What edit.legal automates

—edit.legal automatically generates the complaint structure including formal clauses updated to the Cartabia Reform.
—The system assists in the correct qualification of the asset to distinguish between complaint-based or ex officio prosecution.
—AI suggests the list of necessary attachments based on the type of defacement described.
—Automatic verification of document compliance with the formal requirements of Art. 336 and 337 c.p.p.