Seizure of Assets in Extradition Proceedings: The Criminal Court of Cassation No. 15113/2025 Clarifies the Link to the Offence

With judgment No. 15113 of March 20, 2025 (filed April 16, 2025), the Sixth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation revisits the delicate relationship between precautionary measures concerning assets and passive extradition procedures. The case concerned Argentina's request to obtain, in addition to the handover of the defendant H. P. M., certain assets subject to seizure. The Supreme Court, presided over by G. D. A. and rapporteur A. C., annulled without referral part of the order issued by the Juvenile Court of Rome, drawing clear boundaries on when it is permissible to hand over assets to the requesting foreign state.

The Regulatory Framework: Article 20 of the Italy-Argentina Convention and Article 714 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

The legal basis is Article 20, letters a) and b), of the Extradition Treaty signed in Rome on December 9, 1987, and implemented by Law No. 219/1992. The provision states that the Italian authority may hand over:

• means of proof related to the offence for which proceedings are underway;
• objects derived from the offence, i.e., the corpus delicti or items related thereto pursuant to Article 714, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Therefore, a generic investigative interest of the requesting state is not sufficient; the connection between the asset and the illicit act must be demonstrated.

The Principle Affirmed by the Court of Cassation

In matters of passive procedural extradition, pursuant to Article 20, letters a) and b), of the Italy-Argentina Extradition Convention, signed in Rome on December 9, 1987, ratified and brought into effect by Law February 19, 1992, No. 219, the seizure of assets to be handed over to the requesting state requires that such assets be connected to the offence that is the subject of the extradition request, constituting means of proof or objects derived from the offence, the latter understood, in accordance with Article 714, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the corpus delicti or items related thereto.

Comment: the Court explicitly refers to the binomial «means of proof/objects derived from the offence», excluding any automatic transfer from seizure in Italy to handover abroad. The extradition judge must ascertain, with precise reasoning, that the asset plays a direct evidentiary role or represents the fruit of the illicit act. In the absence of such verification, the seizure for handover purposes is unlawful.

Practical Implications for Defence and Judicial Authorities

• High Motivational Burden: the seizure order must clarify why the asset is the «corpus delicti» or a «related item»; in the absence of such a link, the Court of Cassation will annul the order.
• Active Role of Defence: the suspect can contest the lack of connection by producing documents demonstrating the assets' irrelevance to the alleged offence.
• Conventional Guarantees: the decision aligns with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR (protection of property) and Article 6 of the ECHR (fair trial), imposing strict controls before depriving someone of an asset.
• Limits to Cooperation: international criminal cooperation remains a duty, but it cannot disregard the respect for internal guarantees of legality and reasoning.

Conclusions

Judgment 15113/2025 strengthens the protection of property rights within extradition proceedings, reminding that the handover of assets is not automatic and must be based on a concrete link to the alleged illicit act. For legal professionals, this implies greater attention in drafting seizure orders and in analysing extradition files, in order to avoid annulments and to proceed with effective cooperation that respects constitutional and conventional principles.