Judgment No. 16997/2024: Specific Intent in Fraudulent Transfer of Values

The judgment no. 16997 of March 28, 2024, issued by the Court of Catanzaro, has sparked extensive debate regarding the concept of specific intent in the context of fraudulent transfer of values. In particular, the Court has established that the fictitious holder of an asset does not necessarily have to be driven by specific intent, contrary to what was established in previous rulings. This change in normative interpretation represents a crucial aspect in the fight against economic crime and the circumvention of preventive measures.

The Regulatory and Legal Context

The fraudulent transfer of values is governed by Article 512-bis of the Italian Penal Code. This crime is configured when, through simulated or fraudulent acts, a person attempts to remove assets from the estate, thereby evading possible preventive measures. The judgment in question highlights how the subjective element of the fictitious holder may not consist of specific intent, but rather in the awareness of another's intent.

The Maxim of the Judgment and Its Interpretation

Fraudulent transfer of values - Participation of individuals in the crime - Subjective element of the fictitious holder of the asset - Specific intent - Necessity - Exclusion - Reasons. In the matter of fraudulent transfer of values, the fictitious holder of the asset does not necessarily have to be driven by specific intent, which instead characterizes the conduct of the interposed party, the only subject directly interested in evading the possible adoption of preventive measures against him, as it is sufficient, instead, to be aware of the specific intent of others.

This maxim establishes a fundamental difference between the fictitious holder and the interposed party, who must act with specific intent. The fictitious holder, on the other hand, can simply be aware of others' fraudulent intentions. This distinction has important implications for criminal liability and the definition of roles in situations of participation in the crime.

Practical and Legal Implications

The consequences of this judgment are multiple:

  • Strengthening of preventive measures against the fraudulent transfer of assets.
  • Clarification of the role and responsibility of fictitious holders in criminal proceedings.
  • Possibility of greater application of penal norms in the economic and financial sector.

In conclusion, judgment no. 16997 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the understanding and application of Italian criminal law regarding fraudulent transfers of values, bringing a new interpretation to a complex and highly relevant legal issue.

Bianucci Law Firm