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

Analysis of the Judgment Cass. Pen., Sez. II, n. 47331 of 2023: Seizure and Prescription in Fraud

The judgment n. 47331 of 2023 by the Court of Cassation addresses significant issues in criminal law, particularly regarding the validity of preventive seizure in relation to the prescription of the crime of fraud. This decision provides important insights for lawyers and legal professionals, clarifying the dynamics between the crime of fraud and seizure measures.

The case under examination and the legal issues raised

The appellants, A.A. and B.B., challenged the order of the Court of Matera that confirmed the preventive seizure of their financial assets. The central issue concerns the prescription of the crime of fraud, which led to a request for the revocation of the seizure, supported by the need for adequate reasoning regarding the maintenance of the constraint.

  • Prescription of the crime of fraud and its effect on seizure
  • Distinction between the profit from the crime of fraud and the profit from self-laundering
  • Obligation of reasoning by the Court in case of variation of the precautionary measure
The Court clarified that, once the prescription of the crime of fraud is declared, the seizure cannot automatically remain in force without adequate justification.

Considerations of the Court of Cassation

The Court deemed that the preventive seizure had been ordered not only for the crime of fraud but also for instances of self-laundering. This means that the prescription of the crime of fraud does not automatically imply the annulment of the seizure, as the latter can also be justified by other criminal offenses.

However, the Court emphasized the lack of adequate reasoning from the Court regarding the measure of the confiscable profit, especially after the declaration of prescription. It is essential that judges justify why the real constraint should remain in force, considering the necessity of a distinct and specific confiscable value for self-laundering crimes.

Conclusions

The judgment n. 47331 of 2023 represents an important assertion in criminal law, highlighting the importance of correct reasoning and a clear distinction between the various offenses associated with preventive seizure. Lawyers should pay particular attention to these details in seizure cases to ensure that the rights of their clients are always protected, especially in the presence of prescribed offenses.