Asset Seizure and Administrative Liability: Analysis of Judgment Cass. pen., no. 24058

The judgment of the Court of Cassation, Section III, no. 24058 of June 18, 2024, offers an interesting point of reflection on the dynamics of asset seizure in criminal proceedings, especially concerning corporate liability. In this case, the company Fuel Top Srl had its request for review of a preventive seizure decree, aimed at confiscating sums of money and real estate assets deemed proceeds of an administrative offense, rejected. The Court, analyzing the presented grounds, reiterated the importance of the autonomy of the entity's liability compared to that of the individuals involved.

Context of the Judgment

Fuel Top Srl was involved in criminal proceedings for an administrative offense pursuant to Legislative Decree no. 231 of 2001. The Court of Salerno had confirmed the seizure of assets totaling over 1.4 million euros, finding that the company had not adopted organizational models suitable for preventing the crime. However, the company contested the decision, arguing that the seizure order was based on erroneous premises and on facts not contested by the Public Prosecutor.

The entity's liability must be affirmed even if the perpetrator of the crime has not been identified.

Grounds of the Court of Cassation

The Court rejected Fuel Top Srl's appeal, stating that the entity's liability is autonomous with respect to that of individuals. In particular, the judge emphasized that, even if the liability of the company's legal representative was not proven, the fact that a predicate offense has been ascertained and is attributable to one of the subjects indicated in art. 5 of Legislative Decree no. 231 of 2001 is sufficient to affirm the company's own liability. This principle is fundamental in the administrative liability system, as it ensures effective protection against the risk of impunity for legal persons.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The judgment has several practical implications for companies, including:

• The need to implement adequate organizational models to prevent the occurrence of offenses.
• Particular attention to the management of individuals operating within the entity.
• Awareness that the entity's liability may exist even in the absence of a conviction for the predicate offense against a natural person.

In conclusion, the judgment of the Court of Cassation represents an important reminder of companies' responsibility in managing legal risks and preventing offenses. Companies must pay particular attention to regulatory compliance and the adoption of organizational models that can prevent illicit conduct.

Conclusions

Ultimately, judgment Cass. pen., no. 24058 reiterates the importance of the autonomy of corporate liability and the need for adequate internal organization to prevent offenses. Businesses must therefore invest in compliance and the creation of a work environment that promotes legality.