Commentary on Judgment No. 28502 of 2024: Preventive Seizure and Derogatory Tax Regime

The recent judgment No. 28502 of 2024 from the Court of Cassation provides significant insights into the legal dynamics concerning preventive and evidential seizure, particularly in relation to access to derogatory or favorable tax regimes. This ruling, issued on March 8, 2024, and filed on July 16, 2024, addresses fundamental issues regarding the reviewability of the judge's assessments in this area.

The Regulatory Context

The central theme of the ruling concerns the omission or incorrect assessment of the prerequisites for access to a favorable tax regime, in relation to seizure orders. Article 325, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes the criteria for the legitimacy of appeals to the Court of Cassation, but the Court has clarified that such assessments cannot be reviewed at the legitimacy level.

Measures regarding preventive or evidential seizure - Factual prerequisites for access to a derogatory or favorable tax regime - Omission or incorrect assessment of their existence - Reviewability at the legitimacy level - Exclusion - Reasons. In the context of appeals, the omission or incorrect assessment, in measures regarding preventive or evidential seizure, of the existence of the factual prerequisites for access to a derogatory or favorable tax regime cannot be challenged by means of a cassation appeal, as it does not fall within the notion of violation of law as defined in Article 325, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis of the Judgment

The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, confirming the decision of the Court of Freedom of Imperia. The principle stated clearly indicates that the incorrect assessment of the prerequisites for access to favorable tax regimes cannot be the subject of an appeal. This implies that, in the appeal process, it is not possible to contest the correctness of the lower court's assessment of the facts.

  • The Court emphasizes the importance of the stability of decisions made in precautionary measures.
  • The assessment of the factual prerequisites must remain within the competencies of the merits judge.
  • The lack of reviewability at the legitimacy level aims to ensure the effectiveness of precautionary measures.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 28502 of 2024 represents an important point of reference for criminal procedural law, particularly concerning seizure orders and their relationship with tax regimes. The decision of the Court of Cassation clarifies that the factual prerequisites for access to such regimes are not subject to review by the Court of Cassation, contributing to a more stable and predictable legal framework. This ruling therefore provides important guidance for lawyers and legal practitioners in handling similar cases in the future.

Bianucci Law Firm