Preventive Confiscation and Succession Rights: Cassation No. 19400/2025 on Heirs' Legitimacy

In the realm of criminal law and preventive measures, rulings by the Court of Cassation play a fundamental role, offering essential clarifications and guidance for the application of norms. The recent judgment No. 19400 of 2025 by the Supreme Court falls precisely within this context, addressing a matter of considerable practical and legal significance: the legitimacy of heirs to continue an appeal to the Cassation Court against the denial of revocation of a preventive confiscation, in the event of the death of the originally targeted individual. A decision that profoundly impacts the protection of assets and succession rights.

Asset Prevention Measures: A Complex Context

Preventive measures, particularly asset-related ones such as confiscation, represent incisive tools within the Italian legal system, aimed at seizing assets acquired illicitly or presumed to be the proceeds of criminal activities. Born with the objective of combating organized crime and the accumulation of wealth disproportionate to declared income, these measures have a considerable impact on the legal and patrimonial sphere of individuals and their families. The Anti-Mafia Code (Legislative Decree 159/2011), which has incorporated and reorganized previous laws (such as Law 1423/1956 and Law 575/1965), governs a procedure independent of criminal proceedings, but with definitive confiscatory effects.

Preventive confiscation, in fact, is independent of the ascertainment of criminal liability and is based on indications of social dangerousness and disproportion between possessed assets and lawful income. Given its highly punitive nature, the legislator has provided for protection and appeal mechanisms, including the possibility of requesting the revocation or modification of the measure if the conditions that justified it cease to exist. But what happens if, during the course of an appeal against the denial of such revocation, the interested party passes away?

The Specific Case and the Issue of Procedural Succession

The case that led to the ruling of the Cassation Court No. 19400/2025 concerned the appeal to the Cassation Court filed by V. N. against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Palermo, which had rejected his request for the revocation of a preventive confiscation. During the legitimacy proceedings, the appellant died, raising the crucial question: can his heirs, i.e., those who succeed to the ownership of his assets, continue the appeal aimed at contesting the confiscation of the assets? The Supreme Court's answer was affirmative, consolidating a principle of protection that extends beyond the life of the individual originally affected by the measure.

In matters of preventive confiscation, the cassation proceedings initiated, pursuant to art. 7 of Law 27 December 1956, no. 1423, by the subject targeted by the measure against the decision denying the revocation of the confiscatory measure, may be continued, in the event of the appellant's death, by his heirs. (The Court, in affirming the principle, held that the provision of art. 2-bis, paragraph 6-bis, of Law 31 May 1965, no. 575, according to which, in the event of the death of the subject originally subject to the measure, the procedure for its application continues against his successors or assigns, must also extend to cases where it is not a matter of continuing the appeal against the measure's application, but rather the procedure by which its revocation was requested).

This maxim is of fundamental importance. The Cassation Court, presided over by A. C. and with P. C. as rapporteur, established that the already consolidated principle, according to which the application procedure of a preventive measure continues against the heirs in case of the original subject's death (as provided for by art. 2-bis, paragraph 6-bis, of Law 575/1965, now art. 117 of Legislative Decree 159/2011), must also apply when it is not a matter of continuing the appeal against the initial application of the measure, but rather the procedure by which the revocation of the measure itself was requested. In other words, the Cassation Court has extended procedural "transmissibility" not only to the initial phase of the measure's application but also to the subsequent phase aimed at obtaining the cessation of its effects. This strengthens the right to defense and the protection of assets, ensuring that heirs can assert their claims regarding assets that may have been unjustly confiscated. The rationale is clear: preventive confiscation, while stemming from a personal assessment of dangerousness, affects assets that, upon the death of the targeted individual, fall into the inheritance, and therefore the right to defend these assets is transmitted to the heirs. The Court thus rejected the position of the Court of Appeal of Palermo, recognizing the legitimacy of the heirs.

Conclusions: A Step Forward for Asset Protection

Judgment No. 19400 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important piece in the mosaic of preventive measures, offering greater clarity and legal certainty. It ensures that the death of the subject subject to an asset prevention measure cannot prejudice the heirs' right to continue the legal battle for the revocation of such measure. This principle is crucial for:

• Continuity of protection: it guarantees that patrimonial rights, even if affected by a preventive measure, can be defended even after the disappearance of the original subject.
• Safeguarding family assets: it allows heirs to recover assets that may have been unlawfully seized, protecting the integrity of the inheritance.
• Consistent application of norms: it extends an existing principle (the continuation of the application procedure) to a different phase (the appeal against the denial of revocation), standardizing the discipline.

For those facing complex situations such as those related to preventive measures and hereditary succession, it is essential to rely on legal professionals with specific experience in the field. The correct interpretation and application of these norms can make the difference in safeguarding one's assets and succession rights.