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

Commentary on the ruling of the Italian Supreme Court, Criminal Section VI, no. 31608 of 2024: Self-laundering and fraudulent bankruptcy

The ruling no. 31608 of the Italian Supreme Court, issued on August 1, 2024, represents an important decision regarding the crimes of fraudulent bankruptcy and self-laundering. In this case, the Court of Review of Rome had confirmed the preventive seizure of sums of money attributed to A.A., investigated for fraudulent bankruptcy and self-laundering. The Court analyzed the criteria for configuring self-laundering, highlighting the necessity for additional conduct beyond that of the underlying crime.

The context of the ruling

The case examined by the Italian Supreme Court concerns A.A., accused of diverting sums of money from the company Centro Moda Guidonia Srl, which went bankrupt, to reinvest them in other companies of his group. The central question was whether such operations could constitute the crime of self-laundering. The Court reiterated that for the self-laundering offense to be fulfilled, an action demonstrating a quid pluris is necessary, that is, a concrete element that attests to the dissimulative nature of the conduct.

The rationale of the norm referred to in art. 648-ter 1 of the Penal Code is represented by the reintegration into the circuit of the legal economy of assets of criminal origin, hindering their traceability.

The requirements for self-laundering

According to the ruling, the mere transfer of sums without a change of ownership does not constitute the crime of self-laundering. The fundamental requirements to configure this crime include:

  • A subsequent action compared to the underlying crime.
  • A transfer that changes the ownership of the asset.
  • A conduct that objectively makes it difficult to identify the criminal origin of the asset.

The Court emphasized that the act of self-laundering has an autonomous nature and must be distinguished from fraudulent bankruptcy. Therefore, reinvestment operations must demonstrate a real dissimulative capacity; otherwise, the crime cannot be configured.

Conclusions

The ruling no. 31608 of 2024 provides important clarification on the distinction between fraudulent bankruptcy and self-laundering, underlining the importance of the concrete dissimulative suitability of the conducts. It highlights how the jurisprudence is oriented towards a necessary separation of criminal offenses, avoiding double punishment for similar conduct. This approach not only protects the rights of the accused but also safeguards the economic order, preventing the pollution of the market from illicit capital.