Cassation No. 14483/2025: Confiscation by Equivalent Value Also Affects Joint Accounts

With judgment of March 5, 2025, filed April 14, 2025, No. 14483, the Second Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation returns to address the delicate issue of confiscation by equivalent value of funds held in a joint bank account, a recurring theme in tax crime proceedings. The case originated from a conviction handed down by the Court of Appeal of Turin to G. P., accused of tax violations, to whom the confiscatory measure was applied to bank assets shared with a family member unrelated to the offense.

The Core of the Decision

The judges of legitimacy, while partially overturning the contested decision, reaffirmed an established principle: money deposited in a joint account acquires a common destination for the account holders, and therefore can be fully seized by the judicial authority to satisfy the confiscatory claim. The only limitation is the proof, borne by the third party, that a portion of the funds exclusively belongs to them.

In matters of patrimonial security measures, the confiscation by equivalent value of sums of money deposited in a bank account jointly held with a subject unrelated to the crime is legitimate, as the deposit into the account impresses a common destination upon the sums for the joint account holders, without the relevance, for this purpose, of presumptions or constraints imposed by the Civil Code to regulate solidarity in internal relations between creditors and debtors, without prejudice to the third party's right to prove the exclusive attribution to themselves of a portion of the funds in the account.

The Court thus reiterates the path already laid out by previous consistent rulings (Cass. 40175/2007, 45353/2011, 36175/2017) and by the United Sections 4880/2015: civil presumptions of pro-quota ownership (Articles 1854 and 1298 of the Civil Code) do not limit the power of confiscation. The aim of depriving the offender of profit prevails, in implementation of Article 240 of the Criminal Code and, specifically, Article 12-bis of Legislative Decree 74/2000.

Protections for the Unrelated Joint Account Holder

However, the ruling does not leave good-faith individuals defenseless. The third party may:

• Request in the execution phase the return of their own funds, by providing documentary proof of lawful and personal origin;
• Request the revocation or reduction of the confiscation, by presenting evidence proving their financial autonomy;
• Take civil action for recourse against the convicted person, once the tax claim has been satisfied.

The Court expressly recalls the burden of proof on the third party: it is not enough to claim a theoretical 50% share; specific indications must be provided (demonstrable deposits, traceable resources, payslips, etc.).

Systematic Aspects and Operational Insights

The decision is part of a jurisprudential trend of progressive extension of patrimonial measures, in line with European directives on the seizure of illicit proceeds (EU Directive 2014/42). For lawyers and tax consultants, two lines of action emerge:

• Prevention: carefully evaluate the choice of joint accounts, especially if a partner or family member is exposed to criminal risks.
• Timely Defense: in case of seizure, immediately begin collecting evidence of the lawful origin of the funds, to avoid it being too late for definitive confiscation.

From a theoretical point of view, the debate remains open on the adequacy of the current legislation to reconcile the need for effectiveness of the punitive system and the protection of private property under Article 42 of the Constitution. However, the judgment under review confirms that the Cassation Court's orientation clearly favors the former.

Conclusions

Cassation No. 14483/2025 emphasizes that joint accounts do not represent a safe haven against confiscation by equivalent value. Those who intend to share their account with others must be aware that the entire balance may be seized in the event of criminal liability of one of the joint account holders. At the same time, the unrelated third party retains means of protection, but only if able to punctually demonstrate the lawful origin of their funds. Ultimately, the ruling offers valuable guidance for both judicial practice and preventive advice, confirming the importance of transparent and documented management of personal finances.