Commentary on the Supreme Court Judgment No. 10218 of 2024: Money Laundering and Seizure of Proceeds

The ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation, Section II, No. 10218 of 2024, significantly addresses the issues related to the crime of money laundering, particularly concerning the seizure of profits derived from such illicit activities. The Court annulled the order of the Bari Court, which had accepted the request for a review by a suspect in the money laundering crime, A.A., arguing that the equivalent seizure should be limited to the financial advantage actually obtained by the money launderer.

The distinction between profit and proceeds

A central aspect of the ruling is the distinction between profit and proceeds of the crime. The Court reiterated that the equivalent seizure can only be applied in relation to the value of the financial advantage genuinely obtained by the money launderer, and not on the entire amount derived from illicit operations. This principle is in line with previous jurisprudential orientations, as highlighted in the judgments cited in the ruling.

The equivalent seizure must be limited to the financial advantage actually obtained by the money launderer and not to the entire amount derived from the operations carried out by the perpetrator of the underlying crime.

The legal implications of the ruling

  • Clarification of the concept of profit: the Court emphasized that profit must be interpreted restrictively, limited to the actual economic advantage obtained by the accused party.
  • Recognition of the need for adequate evidentiary assessment: the Bari Court had found a lack of evidence regarding the financial advantage actually obtained by the suspect.
  • Consistency with European regulations: the Court recalled the necessity to interpret national law in accordance with the principles of supranational regulations, such as the Council of Europe Convention on money laundering.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 10218 of 2024 represents an important step forward in understanding the crime of money laundering and its related legal consequences. It clarifies not only the limits of equivalent seizure but also the necessity for a rigorous application of criminal laws concerning illicit profits. The Court, with its intervention, urges reflection on how legal provisions should be applied fairly and justly, respecting the rights of the accused and the objectives of crime prevention and repression.