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

Seizure of Assets in Criminal Matters: Analysis of the Judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 36053 of 2024

The recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, No. 36053 of 2024, provides important insights into the issue of preventive seizure of assets in cases of fraudulent bankruptcy. This decision is situated within a complex legal framework, where issues of legitimacy and asset relevance play a central role. In particular, the Court highlighted the importance of distinguishing between legally and illegally sourced funds, emphasizing the implications of such a distinction in relation to the seizure and confiscation of assets.

The Legal Framework of Preventive Seizure

The Court of Cassation, in its ruling, referred to Articles 240 and 321 of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, highlighting that preventive seizure is a precautionary measure aimed at preventing the dispersion of assets that may be subject to confiscation. In this context, it is essential to understand that confiscation can be mandatory or discretionary, depending on the origin of the funds and their relation to the alleged crime.

Preventive seizure aims to prevent the dispersion of assets liable to confiscation, making the evaluation of their origin essential.

The Specific Case of A.A.

In the case of A.A., the Court examined the legitimacy of the seizure of the funds credited to his bank account, particularly those derived from a pension check. The central issue was whether such funds, having a legal origin, could be included in the already ordered seizure. The Court established that, although the initial seizure had depleted A.A.'s available assets, the legally sourced funds acquired subsequently could not be automatically included in the seizure.

  • Preventive seizure must respect the principle of causal relevance between the asset and the crime.
  • Legally sourced funds must not be confused with illegally sourced funds.
  • The connection between the proceeds of the crime and the seized funds must be verified on a case-by-case basis.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the ruling No. 36053 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation reiterates the importance of a strict distinction between legally sourced funds and illegally sourced funds in the context of preventive seizure. This ruling represents a step forward in the protection of the rights of defendants, highlighting the need for a thorough analysis of the origin of funds during seizure and confiscation, to ensure a fair balance between public interests and individual rights.