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

Analysis of Supreme Court Ruling No. 3743 of 2024: Receiving Stolen Goods and Self-Laundering

The ruling No. 3743 of 2024 from the Supreme Court addresses crucial issues in criminal law, particularly concerning the crimes of laundering and self-laundering. The appellants, A.A. and B.B., found themselves involved in a complex legal matter that raises questions about the reasoning behind the convictions and the correct application of the laws.

Context and Development of the Trial

The Court of Appeal of Turin, with its ruling on December 19, 2022, had partially reformed the sentence imposed on the two defendants, recognizing the continuity among the crimes and re-determining the penalties. A.A. contested the lack of reasoning regarding the identification of the most serious crime, while B.B. raised issues about territorial jurisdiction and the application of Article 648-ter.1 of the Penal Code.

In terms of money laundering, the crime is considered completed when the first act is realized, even if it constitutes a segment of the typical conduct.

The Court's Reasoning

The Court declared A.A.'s appeal inadmissible, emphasizing that the complaints related to the lack of motivation regarding the agreed penalty do not fall within the cases allowed for appeal to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, B.B.'s appeal was rejected, highlighting that the territorial jurisdiction was correctly identified and that the self-laundering conduct was not deserving of non-punishment.

  • The Court deemed that self-laundering activities involved extensive deceptive actions, excluding the application of the non-punishment clause.
  • The principles regarding the necessity of specific reasoning for increases in penalties in cases of continued crimes, as established by the Pizzone ruling, were confirmed.

Legal Implications

This ruling represents an important confirmation of the legal principles regarding the motivation of penalties and territorial jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that the reasoning must be clear and specific, especially in the presence of complex crimes such as money laundering. Additionally, it is confirmed that the violation of provisions on territorial jurisdiction can only be contested if the indictment is clear and detailed.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 3743 of 2024 offers significant reflections for legal practice, emphasizing the need for rigorous and detailed reasoning in judicial decisions. Lawyers must pay particular attention to the methods of presenting appeals and the definition of the contested crimes, to ensure an effective and well-articulated defense.