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

Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling, Criminal Section II, No. 16369 of 2024: Seizure of Assets and Self-Laundering

The recent ruling of the Supreme Court, No. 16369 of 2024, provides an important opportunity for reflection on the regulation of preventive seizure in the context of self-laundering. In particular, the Court addressed the issue of the existence of fumus commissi delicti and the necessary conditions for the legitimacy of the seizure of movable and immovable assets in relation to a defendant accused of self-laundering.

The Case at Hand

The appellant, A.A., opposed the preventive seizure order issued by the investigating judge of the Tribunal of Naples, arguing the absence of sufficient elements to configure the crime of self-laundering. In particular, the defense contested that the payment operations made with proceeds from tax fraud crimes could be considered dissimulative, believing that they did not hinder the identification of the illicit origin of the sums.

In the context of preventive seizure, the fumus of the crime of self-laundering exists in the case of the payment of money to extinguish debts, as such conduct constitutes the substitution of the profit from the underlying crime.

The Court's Arguments

The Court rejected the grounds for the appeal, highlighting how the Tribunal had provided a broad and detailed reasoning that considered all the defense's arguments. In particular, the Court emphasized that the conduct of self-laundering does not necessarily require the existence of dissimulative activity, as the mere substitution of the profit from the underlying crime may be sufficient. This principle diverges from some restrictive interpretations that demand a clear intention to conceal on the part of the defendant.

The Implications of the Ruling

The Court's decision has significant implications for jurisprudence concerning self-laundering and preventive seizure. In particular, it clarifies that:

  • Preventive seizure can be ordered even in the absence of dissimulative activity if there are elements demonstrating the substitution of the profit from the crime.
  • A fumus commissi delicti is sufficient to legitimize the seizure, avoiding the need to prove the defendant's guilt.
  • Payment operations of debts with illicit proceeds may constitute a crime of self-laundering, even if the money used is traceable.

Conclusions

The ruling of the Supreme Court, Criminal Section II, No. 16369 of 2024 represents an important step forward in understanding and applying the regulations concerning self-laundering. It clarifies that the seizure of assets should not be considered an exception but can be a necessary measure to ensure the effectiveness of criminal action against tax fraud and money laundering phenomena. The Court, therefore, not only reaffirms already established principles but also offers an interpretation that may influence future decisions in criminal matters.