Tax Crimes and Preventive Seizure: Commentary on Judgment No. 28709 of 2024

The judgment No. 28709 of May 14, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important clarifications on the subject of tax crimes and precautionary measures. In particular, the Court expressed its views regarding the application of the special cause of non-punishment provided for by Article 23 of Decree-Law No. 34 of 2023, converted by Law No. 56 of 2023. This article introduced the possibility of a facilitated resolution of tax disputes, but the judgment analyzes to what extent this provision may influence precautionary measures such as preventive seizure.

The Regulatory Context and the Judgment

The central issue addressed by the Court concerns the interaction between the agreement between the taxpayer and the tax administration and the possibility of adopting precautionary measures. The Court established that, despite the facilitated resolution, preventive seizure can be ordered, as its function is to ensure the effectiveness of the confiscatory measures if the promised payment is not made.

Tax Crimes - Special Cause of Non-Punishment under Article 23 of Decree-Law No. 34 of 2023, converted with amendments by Law No. 56 of 2023 - Obstruction to Preventive Seizure of the Proceeds of Crime - Exclusion - Reasons. In the context of tax crimes, the special cause of non-punishment provided for by Article 23 of Decree-Law No. 34 of March 30, 2023, converted with amendments by Law No. 56 of May 26, 2023, in the event of an agreement between the taxpayer and the tax administration for the facilitated resolution of the dispute through installment payment of the tax debt does not obstruct preventive seizure aimed at confiscation of the amounts constituting the proceeds of the crime, given that the purpose of the precautionary measure is to ensure that the adopted confiscatory measure, ineffective concerning the part covered by the commitment, exerts its effects if the promised payment does not occur.

The Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has important implications for taxpayers facing tax disputes. In particular, it is essential to emphasize that the possibility of easily resolving a tax dispute does not eliminate the risk of precautionary measures such as preventive seizure. The Court highlighted that, in the event of non-fulfillment of the obligations set forth in the agreement, the seized amounts may be used to ensure the effectiveness of the recovery action by the administration.

  • Assessment of precautionary measures in tax crimes
  • Defense strategies for taxpayers
  • Reflections on regulatory reform in the tax field

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 28709 of 2024 represents an important reference point for understanding the dynamics between tax crimes and precautionary measures. Taxpayers must be aware that, despite recent favorable regulations, the possibility of preventive seizure remains a concrete reality. Therefore, it is essential to seek expert legal advice to navigate this complex regulatory landscape.

Bianucci Law Firm