Confiscation for Disproportion and Protection of Third Parties: Commentary on Judgment No. 31179 of 2024

The recent judgment No. 31179 of May 21, 2024, filed on July 30, 2024, offers significant insights for understanding the evolution of case law regarding asset security measures. In particular, the case at hand deals with confiscation for disproportion and the related protection of third parties, emphasizing guarantees for good faith subjects.

The Regulatory Context of Confiscation for Disproportion

Confiscation for disproportion is a legal institution provided by the Italian Penal Code, which allows for the confiscation of assets when their value is not justified by the legitimate income of the involved party. Article 240-bis of the Penal Code defines the modalities for applying this measure, while Article 104-bis, paragraph 1-quater, of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes the modalities for third parties' intervention in the criminal proceedings.

In particular, the judgment analyzes the applicability of the legislation to good faith third parties who acquired assets before the underlying crime was included in the catalog referred to in Article 240-bis. This aspect is crucial, as the protection of third parties' rights is a fundamental principle regarding confiscation, which also finds its expression at the European level.

The Headnote of the Judgment and Its Meaning

Confiscation for Disproportion - Protection of Third Parties - Article 104-bis, paragraph 1-quater, transitional provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Applicability to good faith third parties - Acquisition of the asset before the underlying crime was included in the catalog pursuant to Article 240-bis, Penal Code - Exclusion - Case. Regarding asset security measures, the discipline contained in Article 104-bis, paragraph 1-quater, transitional provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, referring to Legislative Decree No. 159 of September 6, 2011, related to the modalities of third parties' intervention in criminal proceedings for the protection of their rights, concerning the seizure aimed at confiscation for disproportion and the confiscation itself, does not apply to good faith third parties who acquired the asset before the underlying crime (in this case, fraud pursuant to Article 640, second paragraph, No. 1, Penal Code) was included in the catalog of Article 240-bis of the Penal Code, even though the judgment that ordered the confiscation occurred after this normative integration.

This headnote clarifies that good faith third parties, i.e., those who acquired assets without being aware of any illegalities, cannot face confiscation if the acquisition occurred before the crime was formally included in the catalog. This principle aims to protect the rights of those who acted in good faith and to ensure fair justice.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The implications of this judgment are manifold and concern the protection of third parties' rights in the context of asset security measures. It is essential that those purchasing assets ensure their provenance and that any uncertainties are clarified before proceeding with the purchase.

  • The necessity to verify the asset's ownership history.
  • Legal advice to understand the context of any seizure measures.
  • Awareness that the protection of good faith third parties' rights is a fundamental right.

Conclusions

Ultimately, judgment No. 31179 of 2024 represents an important step forward in protecting the rights of good faith third parties in the context of confiscation for disproportion. It reaffirms the importance of balancing the needs of justice and the protection of property rights, providing a clear legal and jurisprudential reference to rely on for the future.

Bianucci Law Firm