Milan criminal court dismisses theft charge over bicycle lock taken from shared rack

The Milan criminal court dismissed a theft charge against Luca Ferri, finding that prosecutors had not proved he knowingly took someone else’s bicycle lock. The Public Prosecutor had sought six months’ imprisonment and a €154 fine; the court denied both and ordered no payment.

The dispute turned on what Ferri knew when he took the lock from a shared rack. The prosecution said he ignored a warning that it belonged to someone else; the defence said the evidence did not establish that he understood the call.

The judge accepted that Ferri took the lock and that its owner called after him before he left. But the admitted testimony did not say what she called out, whether she identified the lock as hers, or whether Ferri heard and understood particular words.

Those facts raised suspicion, the judgment said, but suspicion was not enough to prove the knowledge required for the charge. The court could not fill the gap with the prosecutor’s description of a clear, face-to-face warning.

A message thanking Ferri for bringing the lock back confirmed its return, but did not show why he returned it or what he knew when he picked it up. Nor was his account that he missed the words independently confirmed. He did not have to prove that account: the burden remained on the prosecution.

The court also said the requested punishment lacked a supporting basis in the record. In any event, no punishment could be imposed because the alleged knowing taking had not been proved.

The prosecutor argued that Ferri knew the lock was not his, ignored its owner and returned it only after being contacted. The prosecution also asserted that the setting was quiet and that he could not have mistaken the lock for his own.

The defence disputed that the evidence established what Ferri understood. It said the return was consistent with a mistake, while accepting that it did not prove one, and asked for the charge to be rejected or the requested punishment reduced.

The judge distinguished those submissions from evidence. Assertions about the setting, the clarity of the warning and Ferri’s reasons for leaving were not established by the admitted testimony.

Witness 1’s admitted testimony described the lock being taken from a shared rack outside a Milan apartment building and its owner calling after Ferri. The next morning, the owner sent a message thanking him for bringing it back.

The dismissal does not establish that Ferri took the lock by mistake. It establishes only that, on the available hearing record, the prosecution did not prove he knew it belonged to someone else.