Commentary on Judgment No. 305 of 2024: Preventive Seizure and Third-Party Standing

Judgment No. 305 of September 18, 2024, filed on January 7, 2025, offers important food for thought on the standing of a third party to challenge a preventive seizure aimed at confiscation. In this article, we will analyze the content of the decision, its legal implications, and the relevant regulatory framework, making the discussion accessible to everyone.

Regulatory Context and Factual Scenario

Preventive seizure is a precautionary measure provided for by Article 240-bis of the Italian Criminal Code, aimed at ensuring the future confiscation of assets traceable to criminal offenses. The judgment under review addresses the issue of the standing of a third party who, believing they are entitled to the return of an asset subject to such a measure, can challenge not only the existence of the seizure but also the prerequisites that justify its application.

Preventive seizure aimed at confiscation - Third party with an interest in restitution - Challenge to the prerequisites for seizure - Standing - Existence - Factual scenario. In matters of real appeals, a third party claiming a right to the return of an asset subject to preventive seizure aimed at confiscation is entitled to challenge also the existence of the prerequisites for the precautionary measure, and therefore, in cassation proceedings, may allege a violation of law concerning "periculum in mora." (Factual scenario concerning preventive seizure for confiscation pursuant to art. 240-bis of the Criminal Code).

Implications of the Judgment

The Court affirmed that the third party has the right to challenge not only the seizure but also the existence of "periculum in mora," a legal concept denoting the risk of imminent harm. This interpretation broadens the defense possibilities for those who consider themselves entitled to request the return of assets. Furthermore, the judgment is part of an evolving case law context, which increasingly recognizes the importance of protecting the rights of third parties.

Final Considerations

In conclusion, Judgment No. 305 of 2024 represents a significant step towards greater protection of third-party rights in matters of preventive seizure. This is a relevant issue that intersects criminal law and procedural guarantees, necessitating continuous reflection by legal professionals. It is crucial that the rights of third parties are not overlooked in the name of the speed of criminal proceedings, but that they are guaranteed the opportunity to defend themselves adequately.