Commentary on Judgment No. 45586 of 2024: Violation of Seals and Liability of the Judicial Custodian

The judgment no. 45586 of November 14, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a matter of significant importance in criminal law: the liability of the judicial custodian in the event of a violation of seals. This ruling provides an important clarification on the difference between the violation of seals and the failure to report, highlighting the specific responsibilities of the custodian in the context of a seized asset.

The Case Under Review

The case concerned the defendant C. L., a judicial custodian of a seized asset, accused of failing to promptly notify the judicial authority of the violation of seals by third parties. The Court determined that such conduct constitutes the crime of aggravated violation of seals, as set forth in Article 349, second paragraph, of the penal code, excluding the hypothesis of failure to report as provided for in Article 361.

Judicial custodian - Failure to promptly notify of the violation of seals committed by third parties - Configurability of the crime in its aggravated form under Article 349, second paragraph, penal code - Crime of failure to report - Configurability - Exclusion - Reasons. The conduct of the judicial custodian of a seized asset with seals affixed, who, neglecting his legal duty to prevent the event, fails to promptly notify the judicial authority of their violation by third parties, constitutes the crime of aggravated violation of seals under the subjective qualification of the agent as per Article 349, second paragraph, penal code, and not the failure to report as provided for in Article 361 penal code, as there exists an apparent concurrence of incriminating provisions, to be resolved through the principle of specialty by addition, since in both cases the conduct is carried out by a public official and may consist of failure to report, but only in the specific circumstance of the violation of seals can it be performed exclusively by the custodian of the asset.

The Implications of the Judgment

The decision of the Court of Cassation emphasizes the importance of the role of the judicial custodian and their duty of vigilance. In fact, the violation of seals is not merely a matter of formal non-compliance, but has serious legal and practical consequences. The custodian, as a public official, is obliged to protect the asset and to promptly inform the judicial authority in the event of a violation. This ruling clarifies that the violation of seals is considered a more serious crime compared to failure to report, precisely due to the specificity of the conduct required from the custodian.

  • Recognition of the liability of the judicial custodian.
  • Clarification of the difference between violation of seals and failure to report.
  • Relevance of the subjective qualification of the agent in contesting the crimes.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 45586 of 2024 represents an important step forward in defining the responsibilities of the judicial custodian. It acknowledges the seriousness of the violation of seals and clarifies that, in the event of failure to report, a different liability regime applies. This decision not only strengthens the role of the custodian but also provides clear guidelines for future similar cases, promoting greater attention and responsibility in complying with existing criminal laws.

Bianucci Law Firm