Preventive Seizure and Extended Confiscation: Analysis of Judgment No. 30633 of 2024

Judgment No. 30633 of July 1, 2024, by the Court of Cassation represents an important milestone in understanding real precautionary measures, particularly the preventive seizure aimed at extended confiscation under Article 240-bis of the Penal Code. This ruling not only clarifies the requirements of congruence between illicit profits and the value of the seized assets but also offers insights into how such measures should be applied fairly and justifiably.

The Legal Context of Preventive Seizure

Preventive seizure is a precautionary measure aimed at ensuring that assets can be confiscated in the event of a conviction for crimes that generate illicit profits. Article 240-bis of the Penal Code establishes that extended confiscation can be ordered in cases where the assets are deemed to be derived from criminal activities, provided there is a reasonable congruence between the illicit profits and the value of the confiscated assets.

Preventive seizure aimed at confiscation under Article 240-bis, Penal Code - Relationship between illicit profits and the value of the seized assets - Congruence - Necessity - Case law. In the context of preventive seizure aimed at extended confiscation under Article 240-bis of the Penal Code, the latter is justified if, and only to the extent that, the criminal conduct attributed to the convicted person is found to have generated illicit profits, in a quantity reasonably congruent with the value of the assets intended for confiscation, the lawful origin of which the individual has not been able to justify. (In application of the principle, the Court annulled with referral the order of the review court that had confirmed the preventive seizure of movable and immovable assets and corporate shares, in light of the crime of receiving a stolen moped attributed to the defendant).

Analysis of the Judgment and Its Effects

The Court annulled with referral the order of the review court, emphasizing the importance of demonstrating a correlation between illicit profits and the value of the assets to be confiscated. This decision highlights that preventive seizure cannot be ordered arbitrarily but must be based on an accurate assessment of the assets and the profits derived from illicit conduct. Specifically, it was noted that, in the case examined, the crime of receiving the moped did not justify the seizure of assets with a value significantly exceeding the illicit profit.

  • Importance of congruence between illicit profits and confiscable assets.
  • Need for an objective assessment of criminal conduct.
  • Possibility of appealing precautionary measures in case of incongruence.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 30633 of 2024 represents an important clarification regarding preventive seizure and extended confiscation, underscoring that the principle of congruence must always be respected. Legal practitioners must pay attention to these principles to ensure that precautionary measures are justified and do not become instruments of injustice. With this decision, the Court reiterates the importance of ensuring a fair balance between the pursuit of justice and the respect for the rights of the parties involved.

Bianucci Law Firm