• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Seizure of assets and administrative liability: analysis of the ruling Cass. pen., n. 24058

The ruling of the Court of Cassation, Section III, n. 24058 of June 18, 2024, provides an interesting point of reflection on the dynamics of asset seizure in the criminal context, especially concerning the responsibilities of companies. In this case, the company Fuel Top Srl had its request for a review of a preventive seizure order aimed at the confiscation of sums of money and real estate, deemed proceeds of an administrative offense, rejected. The Court, analyzing the motivations presented, reiterated the importance of the autonomy of the entity's liability compared to that of the individuals involved.

The context of the ruling

Fuel Top Srl had been involved in a criminal proceeding for an administrative offense under Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2001. The Court of Salerno had confirmed the seizure of assets totaling over 1.4 million euros, considering that the company had not adopted organizational models suitable for preventing the crime. However, the company contested the decision, arguing that the seizure order was based on incorrect assumptions and on facts not contested by the Public Prosecutor.

The liability of the entity must also be affirmed in cases where the author of the offense has not been identified.

The motivations of the Court of Cassation

The Court rejected the appeal of Fuel Top Srl, asserting that the liability of the entity is autonomous from that of the individuals. In particular, the judge emphasized that, even if the liability of the legal representative of the company has not been proven, the fact that a presumed offense has been established and is attributable to one of the subjects indicated by Article 5 of Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2001 is sufficient to affirm the liability of the company itself. This principle is fundamental in the administrative liability system, as it ensures effective protection against the risk of impunity for legal entities.

The practical implications of the ruling

The ruling has several practical implications for companies, including:

  • Need to implement appropriate organizational models to prevent the occurrence of illegal acts.
  • Particular attention to the management of subjects operating within the entity.
  • Awareness that the liability of the entity may exist even in the absence of a conviction for the presumed offense against an individual.

In conclusion, the ruling of the Court of Cassation represents an important reminder of the responsibility of companies in managing legal risks and preventing illegal acts. Companies must pay particular attention to regulatory compliance and the adoption of organizational models that can prevent illegal behavior.

Conclusions

Ultimately, the ruling Cass. pen., n. 24058 reaffirms the importance of the autonomy of corporate liability and the need for adequate internal organization to prevent illegal acts. Companies must therefore invest in compliance and in creating a work environment that promotes legality.