Tax Crimes and Preventive Seizure: Commentary on Judgment No. 28709 of 2024

Judgment No. 28709 of May 14, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important clarifications on the topic of tax crimes and precautionary measures. In particular, the Court ruled on the application of the special ground for non-punishability provided for by art. 23 of Legislative Decree No. 34 of 2023, converted by Law No. 56 of 2023. This article introduced the possibility of an expedited settlement of tax disputes, but the judgment analyzes the extent to which this rule can affect precautionary measures such as preventive seizure.

Regulatory Context and the Judgment

The central issue addressed by the Court concerns the interaction between the agreement between the taxpayer and the tax administration and the possibility of adopting precautionary measures. The Court established that, despite the expedited settlement, preventive seizure can be ordered, as its function is to guarantee the effectiveness of confiscatory measures should the promised payment not be made.

Tax Crimes - Special Ground for Non-Punishability pursuant to art. 23 of Legislative Decree No. 34 of 2023, converted, with amendments, by Law No. 56 of 2023 - Obstacle to Preventive Seizure of the Proceeds of the Crime - Exclusion - Reasons. In the context of tax crimes, the special ground for non-punishability provided for by art. 23 of Legislative Decree of March 30, 2023, No. 34, converted, with amendments, by Law of May 26, 2023, No. 56, in the event of an agreement between the taxpayer and the tax administration for the expedited settlement of the dispute through installment payments of the tax debt, does not preclude preventive seizure aimed at the confiscation of sums constituting the proceeds of the crime, given that the function of the precautionary lien is to ensure that the adopted confiscatory measure, ineffective with regard to the part covered by the commitment, produces its effects if the promised payment does not occur.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has important implications for taxpayers facing tax disputes. In particular, it is crucial to emphasize that the possibility of an expedited settlement of a tax dispute does not eliminate the risk of precautionary measures such as preventive seizure. The Court highlighted that, in case of non-compliance with the obligations provided for by the agreement, the seized sums can be used to guarantee the effectiveness of the recovery action by the administration.

• Assessment of precautionary measures in tax crimes
• Defense strategies for taxpayers
• Reflections on the legislative reform in the tax field

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 28709 of 2024 represents an important reference point for understanding the dynamics between tax crimes and precautionary measures. Taxpayers must be aware that, despite recent favorable regulations, the possibility of preventive seizure remains a concrete reality. It is therefore essential to seek expert legal advice to navigate this complex regulatory landscape.