Seizure of assets in extradition: the Criminal Cassation Court n. 15113/2025 clarifies the link with the crime

With judgment no. 15113 of March 20, 2025 (filed April 16, 2025), the Sixth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation revisits the delicate relationship between precautionary real measures and passive extradition procedures. The case concerned Argentina's request to obtain, in addition to the handover of the defendant H. P. M., also some assets subject to seizure. The Supreme Court, presided over by G. D. A., rapporteur A. C., annulled without referral part of the order of the Juvenile Court of Rome, drawing clear boundaries on when it is possible to hand over items to the requesting foreign state.

The regulatory framework: art. 20 Italy-Argentina Convention and art. 714 c.p.p.

The legal basis is art. 20, letters a) and b), of the Extradition Treaty signed in Rome on December 9, 1987, and made enforceable by Law 219/1992. The provision states that the Italian authority may hand over:

• means of proof related to the crime for which proceedings are pending;
• objects originating from the crime, i.e., the corpus delicti or items related to it pursuant to art. 714, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Therefore, a generic investigative interest of the requesting state is not sufficient: the connection between the asset and the offense must be demonstrated.

The principle affirmed by the Cassation Court

In matters of passive procedural extradition, pursuant to art. 20, letters a) and b), of the Italy-Argentina Extradition Convention, signed in Rome on December 9, 1987, ratified and implemented by Law February 19, 1992, n. 219, the seizure of assets to be handed over to the requesting state requires that they be connected to the crime that is the subject of the extradition request, constituting means of proof or objects originating from it, the latter understood, in accordance with the provisions of art. 714, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the corpus delicti or items related to it.

Comment: the Court explicitly refers to the binomial «means of proof/objects originating from the crime», excluding any automaticity between seizure in Italy and handover abroad. The extradition judge must ascertain, with precise reasoning, that the asset plays a direct evidentiary role or represents the fruit of the illicit act. In the absence of such verification, the seizure for handover purposes is illegitimate.

Practical implications for the defense and for the judicial authority

• High motivational burden: the seizure order must clarify why the asset is «corpus delicti» or «related item»; in the absence of such a link, the Cassation Court will annul the provision.
• Active role of the defense: the suspect can contest the lack of connection by producing documents demonstrating the assets' irrelevance to the alleged offense.
• Conventional guarantees: the decision aligns with art. 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the ECHR (protection of property) and art. 6 of the ECHR (fair trial), imposing strict controls before depriving someone of an asset.
• Limits to cooperation: international criminal cooperation remains a duty, but it cannot disregard the respect for internal guarantees of legality and reasoning.

Conclusions

Judgment 15113/2025 strengthens the protection of property rights within the framework of extradition, reminding that the handover of assets is not automatic and must be based on a concrete link with the alleged offense. For legal professionals, this implies greater attention in drafting seizure orders and in analyzing extradition files, in order to avoid annulments and proceed with effective cooperation, while respecting constitutional and conventional principles.