The ruling no. 1251 of 2024 on the confiscation of assets falsely registered to third parties

The ruling no. 1251 of 2024 by the Court of Milan has raised important issues regarding the confiscation of assets falsely registered to third parties. This decision, which addresses the standing and interest of third parties in contesting the conditions for applying the measure, provides a significant legal framework for those involved in such situations.

The content of the ruling

The Court declared inadmissible the possibility for a third party to contest the prerequisites for the application of confiscation. In particular, it states that the third party has the right to claim solely the actual ownership and property of the assets subject to confiscation. However, it cannot contest fundamental aspects such as the condition of dangerousness or the disproportion between the value of the asset and the declared income.

This principle is based on Legislative Decree No. 159 of September 6, 2011, which governs preventive measures and asset confiscation. The Court thus reaffirmed the importance of maintaining a balance between the protection of property rights and public safety needs.

Implications for involved third parties

For third parties in similar situations, this means that:

  • They can demonstrate actual ownership of the assets.
  • They cannot contest the confiscation measure based on issues of dangerousness or the origin of the asset.
  • They must face the complexity of the existing regulations and their practical applications.
Confiscation of assets falsely registered to a third party - Standing and interest of the third party to contest the prerequisites for applying the measure to the proposed - Exclusion - Reasons. In the case of preventive confiscation concerning assets deemed falsely registered to a third party, the latter can claim solely the actual ownership and property of the encumbered assets, fulfilling the related burden of allegation, but is not entitled to contest the prerequisites for the application of the measure, such as the condition of dangerousness, the disproportion between the value of the confiscated asset and the declared income, as well as the origin of the asset itself, which only the proposed can have an interest in asserting.

Conclusions

The ruling no. 1251 of 2024 represents an important step in defining the rules regarding the confiscation of assets falsely registered to third parties. It clarifies the limitations of third-party rights and emphasizes the need for a clear distinction between property rights and the preventive measures adopted by the State. In a context where public safety is a fundamental objective, this ruling provides useful guidance for all those involved in such proceedings, highlighting the importance of adequate legal advice to navigate these complex legal dynamics.

Bianucci Law Firm