Preventive seizure and confiscation: analysis of Judgment No. 45268 of 2024

Judgment No. 45268 of September 18, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides an important reflection on real precautionary measures, particularly regarding preventive seizure aimed at confiscation pursuant to Article 240-bis of the Criminal Code. This legal provision plays a crucial role in combating economic crime but must be applied with rigor and adequate motivation.

The principle of "periculum in mora"

According to the maxim of the judgment, the preventive seizure order must contain a clear and concise motivation regarding the existence of "periculum in mora." This legal terminology refers to the necessity of justifying the seizure based on the risk that the assets may be dispersed or compromised. The Court clarifies that mere ownership of assets inferior to those subject to confiscation is not sufficient to declare the existence of such danger.

Preventive seizure aimed at confiscation pursuant to Article 240-bis of the Criminal Code - Motivation on the existence of "periculum in mora" - Necessity - Insufficiency of the assets - Sufficiency - Exclusion. The preventive seizure order functional to extended confiscation pursuant to Article 240-bis of the Criminal Code must contain the concise motivation of "periculum in mora," which cannot be deemed existent based solely on the ownership, by the subject recipient of the measure, of assets inferior to those subject to confiscation, not even when the object of the constraint consists of a fungible asset such as money.

The implications of the judgment

The judgment in question not only reiterates the need for adequate motivation but also introduces an element of guarantee for the recipients of precautionary measures. In fact, the Court of Cassation has established that the insufficiency of the assets cannot be used as the sole proof of "periculum in mora," thus excluding that simple ownership of insufficient assets to cover the amount of confiscation can justify a seizure order.

  • Importance of motivation in the seizure order.
  • Exclusion of simple ownership as justification for "periculum in mora."
  • Implications for the protection of the rights of the individuals involved.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 45268 of 2024 represents a significant step towards greater protection of the rights of individuals subjected to precautionary measures. The obligation for a clear and detailed motivation regarding "periculum in mora" not only strengthens the principle of legality but also helps to ensure a balance between the need for justice and the protection of individual rights. It is essential that legal practitioners pay attention to these indications to ensure a correct and balanced application of precautionary measures in our legal system.

Bianucci Law Firm