Commentary on Judgment No. 14047 of 2024: Preventive Seizure and Corporate Liability

Judgment No. 14047 of February 13, 2024, represents an important ruling regarding the criminal liability of entities, particularly concerning the preventive seizure outlined in Article 53 of Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2001. This article outlines the legal contours related to the possibility of adopting precautionary measures on the assets of legal entities, highlighting the importance of the motivation of "periculum" to justify such measures.

Preventive Seizure in Legislative Decree No. 231/2001

Preventive seizure is a precautionary measure that allows for the inhibition of the availability of assets that could constitute the price or profit of a crime. The judgment under examination emphasizes that this measure must be accompanied by a clear and concise motivation regarding the periculum in mora, i.e., the risk that the assets may be dissipated or removed during the time necessary for the resolution of the case.

  • The preventive seizure must be proportionate and adequate in relation to the highlighted risk.
  • An assessment of the specific circumstances of the case is necessary.
  • The motivation must demonstrate the urgency of adopting the precautionary measure.

The Maxim of the Judgment and Its Significance

Criminal liability of entities - Preventive seizure under Article 53 of Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2001 - "Periculum" - Motivation - Necessity. In matters of criminal liability of entities and legal persons, the preventive seizure under Article 53 of Legislative Decree No. 231 of June 8, 2001, of assets that constitute the price and profit of the crime, which must be confiscated, even by equivalent, must contain the concise motivation of "periculum in mora," to be related - in compliance with the criteria of adequacy and proportionality of the real measure - to the reasons that make the anticipation of the ablative effect necessary with respect to the resolution of the case.

This maxim highlights the importance of a detailed motivation in the context of precautionary measures. It is not enough to assert that there is a risk; it is essential to demonstrate that the seizure is necessary and justified concerning the specific situation. The Court of Cassation has reiterated that the motivation of "periculum in mora" must not only be present but also sufficiently robust to legitimize the precautionary measure.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 14047 of 2024 offers important insights for understanding the liability of legal persons and the operation of precautionary measures. The necessity for adequate and proportionate motivation not only protects the rights of the entities involved but also helps to ensure a balance between the repression of crimes and the safeguarding of legal certainty. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, and cases like this represent a step forward in defining a clear and coherent regulatory framework.

Bianucci Law Firm