Commentary on Judgment No. 305 of 2024: Preventive Seizure and the Standing of the Third Party

The judgment no. 305 of September 18, 2024, filed on January 7, 2025, offers important insights regarding the standing of the third party to contest the preventive seizure aimed at confiscation. In this article, we will analyze the contents of the decision, the legal implications, and the regulatory context, making the discussion accessible to all.

The Regulatory Context and the Case

The preventive seizure is a precautionary measure provided for by Article 240-bis of the Penal Code, aimed at ensuring the future confiscation of assets related to crimes. The judgment in question addresses the issue of the standing of the third party who, believing to have the right to the return of an asset subject to such a measure, can contest not only the existence of the seizure but also the grounds that justify its application.

Preventive seizure aimed at confiscation - Third party with an interest in restitution - Contestation of the grounds for seizure - Standing - Existence - Case. In the matter of real appeals, the third party who claims to have the right to the return of the asset subject to preventive seizure aimed at confiscation is entitled to contest the existence of the grounds for the precautionary measure, so that, in the context of legitimacy, they can argue the violation of law regarding the "periculum in mora". (Case concerning preventive seizure functional to confiscation under Article 240-bis of the Penal Code).

Implications of the Judgment

The Court stated that the third party has the right to contest not only the seizure but also the existence of the "periculum in mora", a legal concept that denotes the risk of imminent harm. This interpretation broadens the defense possibilities for those who consider themselves entitled to request the return of the assets. Furthermore, the judgment fits into an evolving jurisprudential context, where the importance of protecting the rights of third parties is increasingly recognized.

Final Considerations

In conclusion, judgment no. 305 of 2024 represents a significant step towards greater protection of the rights of third parties in matters of preventive seizure. This is a relevant issue that intersects criminal law and procedural guarantees, necessitating continuous reflection by legal practitioners. It is essential that the rights of third parties are not overlooked in the name of the speed of criminal proceedings, but that they are guaranteed the opportunity to adequately defend themselves.

Bianucci Law Firm