Preventive Seizure and Confiscation by Equivalence: Cassation 17894/2025 and the Limits of Impignorability

In the complex landscape of criminal law, the protection of assets and the rights of the parties involved require jurisprudential clarity. The recent ruling no. 17894 of 11/03/2025 (filed on 13/05/2025) by the Court of Cassation offers crucial clarifications on the applicability of impignorability limits (art. 545, paragraph 3, c.p.c.) in relation to preventive seizure and confiscation by equivalence. This decision, drafted by rapporteur E. G. and presided over by G. A., is of primary importance for distinguishing the position of the suspect from that of third parties unrelated to the crime, providing valuable guidance for asset protection.

Real Precautionary Measures: Seizure and Confiscation

Real precautionary measures, such as preventive seizure (art. 321 c.p.p.), aim to prevent the dispersal of assets related to a crime. Confiscation by equivalence (art. 322-ter c.p.), on the other hand, allows for the removal of assets from the offender equivalent in value to the illicit profit. These tools are essential for criminal justice, but their application profoundly affects property rights.

Ruling 17894/2025: Impignorability Limits for Suspect or Third Party?

The Cassation addresses the application of the impignorability limits established by art. 545, paragraph 3, c.p.c., which protect a portion of sums received as salary, pension, and other allowances. Ruling no. 17894/2025 unequivocally clarifies how these limits relate to confiscation by equivalence and the seizure aimed at it. Here is the full maxim:

In the context of real precautionary measures, the impignorability limits referred to in art. 545, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable at every stage of the proceedings also to confiscation by equivalence and the seizure aimed at it, concern only the suspect whose funds have been seized, who is the effective "dominus" thereof, and do not apply, however, to third parties unrelated to the crime, who, if they prove ownership of the seized sums, can claim the right to their full restitution.

The Court emphasizes that the impignorability limits apply exclusively to the suspect, as the "dominus" of the seized sums. For the suspect, the protections of art. 545, paragraph 3, c.p.c. ensure that an essential part of their livelihood remains untouched. Conversely, for third parties unrelated to the crime, these limits do not apply. If a third party proves to be the legitimate owner of the seized sums, they are entitled to full restitution, without any deduction. This principle is fundamental to protecting the rights of those who, although not involved in the illicit act, suffer the consequences of precautionary measures.

• For the suspect: Application of impignorability limits pursuant to art. 545, paragraph 3, c.p.c.
• For third parties unrelated to the crime: Right to full restitution of seized sums, upon proof of ownership.

Protection of Third Parties: Practical Implications

The Cassation's ruling strengthens the position of third parties who may unintentionally find themselves involved in criminal proceedings. The property rights of an innocent person must prevail over the logic of asset limitation applied to the perpetrator. It is essential for third parties to act promptly to demonstrate their unrelatedness to the crime and their legitimate ownership of the assets. Specialized legal advice is indispensable to navigate procedural complexities and ensure the full protection of one's interests, avoiding unjust impoverishment for those who are not at fault.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 17894 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is a cornerstone in the jurisprudence on real precautionary measures. It reaffirms a fundamental principle: the financial consequences of crimes must affect the perpetrators, safeguarding the rights of unrelated third parties. This jurisprudential orientation offers legal certainty and strengthens confidence in the judicial system, ensuring that justice is applied with rigor and proportionality, while also protecting the innocence and assets of citizens.