Cass. pen. Ruling No. 13793/2025: Self-money laundering and limits to confiscation

With ruling No. 13793, filed on April 8, 2025, the Court of Cassation, Second Criminal Section, revisits the – far from settled – issue of the confiscable quantum in cases of self-money laundering under Article 648-ter 1 of the Criminal Code. The appeal was lodged by G. G. against the order of the Tribunal of Review of Livorno, which had confirmed the precautionary seizure of assets deemed to be the proceeds of illicit activity. The Supreme Court, presided over by M. D’A. and with S. R. as rapporteur, rejects the appeal but offers decisive clarifications for legal practice, dispelling the risk of «double confiscation».

The core of the decision

The Cassation Court identifies two key points:

• The profit from self-money laundering coincides with the entire value of the «cleaned» assets, not just the quid pluris generated by the dissimulatory operations.
• However, it is illegitimate to order confiscation twice on the same value, qualifying it simultaneously as the profit of the predicate offense (e.g., embezzlement, fraud) and as the product of the derived offense (self-money laundering).

The Court refers to rulings No. 4145/2023 of the United Sections and No. 4953/2020, affirming interpretative continuity with Article 322-ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates proportionality between the crime and asset forfeiture.

The profit of the self-money laundering offense must be identified in the entire value of the assets subject to dissimulatory conduct, and not solely in the hypothetical "quid pluris" deriving from the conduct that constitutes the derived offense, but it is, however, not legitimate to duplicate the lien, i.e., to seize the same value both as direct profit of the predicate offense and as product of the derived offense.

In simple terms, the Court explains that the perpetrator of self-money laundering cannot claim the subtraction of the original capital from the seizure, but at the same time, the prosecution and the judge cannot «sum up» the same sums twice: this would violate the principle of proportionality enshrined by the ECtHR (case Raimondo v. Italy) and Article 49 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Procedural aspects and defense strategies

Defense lawyers must therefore verify:

• whether the seizure order distinguishes the profit of the predicate offense from that of self-money laundering;
• whether there is a risk of duplication in quantification;
• the presence of autonomous counts of indictment that justify multiple liens on different assets.

Conversely, the prosecution may continue to target the entire «cleaned» value, provided it avoids overlaps. The innovation compared to previous, often more punitive, practices is significant: the precautionary seizure under Article 321, paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot exceed the perimeter defined by the Cassation Court.

Implications on the civil and tax levels

The dictum also affects preventive procedures, bankruptcies, and tax recoveries. Where the same asset is encumbered by multiple creditor claims, it will be necessary to distinguish between seizures criminally aimed at confiscation and civil seizures, avoiding undue overlaps that sacrifice the principle of creditor competition.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 13793/2025 consolidates a balance between punitive needs and property protection. The message is clear: «everything that is laundered is subject to confiscation, but only once». For operators in economic criminal law, this is a guiding criterion that requires greater rigor in the analysis of financial flows and strengthens the chances of success for appeals against disproportionate seizures.