Fraudulent Transfer of Assets: When Repetition Constitutes Multiple Offences According to the Supreme Court (Judgment 18413/2025)

In the landscape of Italian criminal law, the fight against fraudulent transfer of assets represents a cornerstone in protecting public safety and preventing economic crime. In this context, the Supreme Court of Cassation, with its recent ruling no. 18413 of 15/05/2025, has provided important clarifications on the dynamics of this crime, particularly regarding the repetition of illicit conduct. This judgment is destined to profoundly impact the interpretation and application of Article 512 bis of the Criminal Code, offering new perspectives on the configuration of multiple offences.

The Context of the Ruling and the Specific Case

The judicial case that led to the judgment in question involved the defendant A. P., implicated in a case of fraudulent transfer of assets. The Court of Appeal of Catania, with its judgment of 17/04/2024, had issued a verdict that was subsequently partially annulled without referral by the Supreme Court. Under the presidency of Dr. G. L. and with the report of Dr. A. C., the Supreme Court found itself examining a matter of fundamental importance: whether the subsequent repetition of fictitious transfers of ownership of the same assets and companies gives rise to a single continuous offence or to a plurality of independent offences. The Public Prosecutor M. D. N. had argued for the need for a clear definition for the correct application of the law.

The Supreme Court's Maxim: A Fundamental Principle

The core of the Supreme Court's decision is encapsulated in its maxim, a principle that unequivocally clarifies the Court's position:

In the matter of fraudulent transfer of assets, the subsequent repetition of fictitious ownership transfers of the same assets and companies, aimed at covering up and masking their real ownership, gives rise to a plurality of independently punishable offences, in cases where there is a significant temporal break between the different fictitious assignments. (In application of the principle, the Court deemed the first instance of fictitious ownership transfer time-barred, emphasizing the fact that three years had passed between the two illicit conducts and a complaint had been filed against the first owner).

This statement is of paramount importance. The Supreme Court establishes that not every subsequent fictitious transfer merges with the previous one, but can constitute a new and distinct offence. The key element is the “significant temporal break” between the different assignments. This means that if a considerable period of time elapses between one fraudulent transfer and another, and particularly if other factors intervene such as a complaint or the emergence of new circumstances, each individual conduct can be considered an independent offence. The example provided by the Court itself, where the first instance was deemed time-barred due to the passage of three years and the filing of a complaint, illuminates the practical scope of this principle.

Practical and Regulatory Implications

This interpretation has several significant implications:

• Plurality of Offences: Each act of fictitious ownership transfer, if temporally distinct, can be prosecuted as a separate offence, rather than as part of a single criminal design.
• Calculation of Statute of Limitations: The statute of limitations will run independently for each offence, making defence activities more complex and potentially extending the period of criminal prosecution for repeated conduct.
• Art. 512 bis C.P.: Article 512 bis of the Criminal Code, introduced to combat organized crime and money laundering, finds a more rigorous application here, preventing subsequent fraudulent conduct from being 'absorbed' by the first. This provision punishes those who fictitiously attribute ownership or control of money, assets, or other benefits to third parties in order to evade legal provisions on asset prevention or smuggling, or to facilitate the commission of one of the crimes of receiving stolen goods or money laundering.
• Combating Crime: The judgment strengthens the tools available to the judiciary to combat the concealment of asset ownership, often used to mask illicit proceeds or to evade asset prevention measures.

The legislative references cited by the Supreme Court (Art. 512 bis C.P., D.L. 306/1992 art. 12 quinquies, L. 356/1992 art. 1) underscore the continuity and coherence with the legislative framework aimed at preventing and repressing phenomena of economic and organized crime.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 18413/2025 of the Supreme Court of Cassation represents a fundamental reference point for anyone operating in criminal law and dealing with economic crimes. It clarifies that the repetition of fraudulent asset transfer conduct, if separated by a significant temporal break, does not constitute a single instance but a plurality of independently punishable offences. This principle strengthens the effectiveness of anti-money laundering and asset prevention regulations, providing a stronger deterrent against those who attempt to conceal the true ownership of assets through continuous fictitious transfers. For professionals and citizens alike, it is a warning to be attentive and diligent in asset transactions, highlighting how the law is increasingly uncompromising towards any form of fraudulent concealment.