• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

The Supreme Court and Precautionary Measures: Reflections on Judgment No. 30092

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, Section III, No. 30092 of July 23, 2024, offers important insights into personal precautionary measures in the criminal field, particularly regarding tax offenses. In this article, we analyze the main aspects of the case involving A.A., the legal representative of the company "Macropharm Srl," and the implications of the Court's decision.

The Case of A.A. and Precautionary Measures

The Court annulled the order of the Court of Caltanissetta that had imposed prohibitory measures against A.A., accused of having made undue tax offsets through non-existent credits. The Court emphasized that the element of subjectivity, that is, the intent necessary to constitute the crime, was not adequately proven.

The contested order erroneously considered that there were serious indications of guilt against the current appellant.
  • The crime of undue compensation is configured only if the non-existent credit exceeds the threshold of punishability provided.
  • The joint responsibility of the client does not automatically imply awareness of the contractor's use of illegal practices.
  • The assessment of serious indications of guilt must take into account the rule of doubt in favor of the defendant.

Legal Principles and Implications of the Ruling

The decision of the Cassation is based on some fundamental legal principles. Of particular relevance is the provision of Article 10-quater of Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000, which regulates undue compensations. The Court clarified that to ascertain the exceedance of the threshold of punishability, it is necessary to consider the total amount of compensations made during the year, without dividing them by tax year.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the importance of examining the subjective element of the crime, emphasizing that mere awareness of an economic advantage cannot be sufficient to constitute intent. The Court of Caltanissetta, in fact, did not take into account the time gap between the illegal conduct and the order for the application of precautionary measures, which dated back more than three years.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 30092 of the Cassation represents an important affirmation of the rights of defendants concerning precautionary measures. It highlights the necessity for a rigorous and comprehensive assessment of serious indications of guilt, especially in the tax field, where prohibitory measures can have a significant impact on the professional and personal lives of the accused. It is essential that every precautionary measure is supported by concrete evidence and not by assumptions, to ensure a fair trial and respect for fundamental rights.