Territorial Jurisdiction in Money Laundering: The Importance of the First Act according to the Court of Cassation (Judgment no. 10525/2025)

The crime of money laundering, by its complex nature and often fragmented into multiple operations, presents a constant challenge for the judicial system, especially in identifying the competent judge. When illicit conduct unfolds through various actions, involving multiple individuals in different places and times, determining jurisdiction can lead to uncertainty. The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 10525 filed on March 17, 2025, has provided a fundamental clarification, establishing a guiding principle to make criminal prosecution more effective in these intricate contexts.

The Issue of Jurisdiction in Multifaceted Money Laundering

Money laundering, governed by Article 648-bis of the Italian Criminal Code, punishes anyone who carries out operations aimed at obstructing the identification of the illicit origin of assets. These operations are rarely concluded in a single act; they often consist of a series of steps, sometimes coordinated by multiple actors operating in different places and at different times. This fragmentation of conduct makes it difficult to determine the "place of the crime" and, consequently, which judicial office has territorial jurisdiction. The absence of a single criterion could generate uncertainty, procedural delays, and conflicts between different judicial authorities. The Court of Cassation's judgment intervenes precisely to overcome these critical issues.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation: The "First Act" Principle

The Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. A. P. and with Dr. G. S. as rapporteur, addressed the specific case, which involved the Court of Genoa in a declaration of jurisdiction, establishing a cornerstone principle. Here is the ruling of the judgment:

For the purpose of determining territorial jurisdiction concerning the crime of money laundering, when carried out through fragmented and progressive conduct, entrusted to multiple individuals who have contributed at different times and places, it must be considered perfected in the place where the first act occurs, even if it constitutes a segment of the typical conduct.

This passage is of crucial importance. The Supreme Court establishes that, even in the presence of complex and distributed action, territorial jurisdiction is rooted in the place where the first act of money laundering is committed. It does not matter if this act is only part of the entire operation or if other subsequent and more significant acts occur elsewhere; what matters is the time and place where the illicit activity began. This interpretation offers multiple practical advantages:

• Clarity and Certainty: It provides an objective and easily identifiable criterion.
• Investigative Efficiency: It allows investigations to be focused from the outset.
• Prevention of Conflicts: It reduces jurisdictional conflicts, accelerating the pace of justice.

Legal References and Implications

The Court of Cassation's decision aligns with the general principles of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding territorial jurisdiction (Articles 12, 16, 21 c.p.p.), which often prioritize the place where the crime was consummated or, subsidiarily, where the first act was committed. Money laundering (Art. 648-bis c.p.) and self-laundering (Art. 648-ter c.p.) are free-form crimes with prolonged consummation, making the definition of the place a delicate aspect. This ruling is in line with previous orientations of the same Court, such as judgment no. 38105 of 2021, which already highlighted the tendency to identify jurisdiction in the place of the first segment of the typical conduct. The intervention of Public Prosecutor G. S. in the proceedings underscores the importance of the issue for the prosecution.

Conclusions: Greater Effectiveness in the Fight Against Money Laundering

Judgment no. 10525 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a significant step forward in defining clear rules for the application of law in money laundering matters. By establishing that territorial jurisdiction is rooted in the place of the first act of illicit conduct, the Supreme Court offers a valuable guiding criterion for magistrates, lawyers, and law enforcement agencies. This principle not only ensures greater legal certainty but also strengthens the effectiveness of action against a crime that is the lifeblood of many criminal activities, contributing to a faster and more incisive state response against economic and organized crime.