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

Analysis of the Sentence of the Court of Cassation, Criminal Section V, No. 20152 of 2024: Bankruptcy and Self-Money Laundering

The recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, Criminal Section V, No. 20152 of 2024, provides an important opportunity for reflection regarding the boundaries between fraudulent bankruptcy and self-money laundering. In the case at hand, the accused A.A., legal representative of Aspera Spa, partially succeeded in his appeal against the order of the Genoa Review Court, which had annulled the charges of self-money laundering. The judges highlighted the need to clarify the temporal and substantial distinction between the two offenses, emphasizing that self-money laundering must necessarily take on an autonomous configuration in relation to the act of bankruptcy.

The Regulatory Context

The central issue of the ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 648-ter 1 of the penal code, which regulates self-money laundering. According to the Court, the conduct of self-money laundering occurs temporally after the commission of the underlying crime, in this case, fraudulent bankruptcy. This implies that, in order for the offense of self-money laundering to be configured, there must be a quid pluris, that is, an additional conduct that deviates from the mere distraction of the company's assets.

The Court emphasized that the conduct attributed to the accused as distracting also involved the charge of self-money laundering, without adequate chronological delimitation of the conduct.

Distinction Between Offenses

The Court of Cassation, recalling previous jurisprudence, stressed that the mere transfer of sums of money from the bankrupt company to other companies does not automatically constitute the offense of self-money laundering. It is essential, in fact, that there is an actual distinction between the conduct of bankruptcy and that of self-money laundering, with the addition of a dissimulatory element that hinders the identification of the illicit origin of the money.

  • The conduct of fraudulent bankruptcy is configured with the distraction of assets.
  • For self-money laundering, an additional activity is necessary that creates difficulties in identifying the criminal origin.
  • Jurisprudence has highlighted the importance of the quid pluris to avoid overlaps between the two offenses.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 20152 of 2024 represents an important guide for legal practitioners, clarifying the boundaries between fraudulent bankruptcy and self-money laundering. The Court of Cassation reaffirmed the importance of a rigorous interpretation of the contested conduct, to ensure the correct application of criminal laws. In a context where economic conduct can intertwine and overlap, it is essential to maintain clarity and rigor in the legal analysis of criminal offenses.