Confiscation, Bankruptcy Trusteeship and Revocatory Action: The Court of Cassation and Ruling 19469/2025

The Italian legal landscape is constantly animated by rulings that delineate the boundaries between different branches of law, often called upon to confront issues of primary importance. One of these particularly complex and delicate intersections concerns the relationship between patrimonial prevention measures – instruments aimed at removing assets from the control of individuals deemed dangerous to public safety – ordinary revocatory actions, and insolvency proceedings, particularly bankruptcy. In this context, the recent ruling no. 19469, filed on May 26, 2025, by the Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. G. D. A. and reported by Dr. B. P. R., offers fundamental clarifications.

The Case Before the Supreme Court: Between Seizure, Confiscation, and Revocation

The issue examined by the Court of Cassation originated from proceedings involving S. F. S.r.l. The essence of the dispute revolved around the enforceability of an ordinary revocatory ruling, issued after the confiscation of an asset, against a bankruptcy trustee. The latter, despite being admitted to the liabilities of a patrimonial prevention procedure, had never been summoned to intervene in the prevention proceedings that concluded with the confiscation of the asset. The trustee had limited itself to continuing the civil proceedings until the revocatory action was upheld, with the aim of recovering the asset for the bankruptcy estate.

The Court of Appeal, upholding the decision of the Court of Rome dated November 11, 2024, had rejected the trustee's arguments. The Court of Cassation was called upon to rule on the legitimacy of this decision, addressing the crucial issue of the prevalence of the decisions of the prevention judge over those of the civil judge concerning revocatory actions.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation and the Role of the Prevention Judge

The Supreme Court, with ruling no. 19469/2025, rejected the appeal, establishing a legal principle of great significance. Here is the summary that encapsulates the core of the decision:

In matters of prevention measures, an ordinary revocatory ruling issued after the confiscation of a seized asset, to which a bankruptcy trustee admitted to the liabilities of a patrimonial prevention procedure was never summoned to intervene in the relevant proceedings concluded with the confiscation of the asset, and which therefore limited itself to continuing the civil proceedings until the revocatory action was upheld, is not enforceable against the trustee. This is because only the prevention judge is functionally competent to verify the rights that can be asserted against it. (In its reasoning, the Court also stated that the advent of seizure and subsequent confiscation renders the upholding of the revocatory action irrelevant, in the absence of a contrary assessment by the prevention judge, nor does it result in the asset reverting.)

This means that once confiscation has occurred in a prevention proceeding, an ordinary revocatory ruling, even if obtained subsequently by the bankruptcy trustee, cannot be invoked to recover the asset. The Court of Cassation reiterates that the prevention judge is the sole competent body to assess the rights that can be asserted over assets subject to confiscation. The advent of seizure and subsequent confiscation effectively renders the upholding of the revocatory action irrelevant, unless there is a specific contrary assessment by the prevention judge. Once confiscated, the asset does not revert to the control of the individual or the bankruptcy estate as a result of a civil revocatory ruling.

The Regulatory Framework: The Anti-Mafia Code and Third-Party Protection

The decision is based on the regulatory framework outlined by Legislative Decree of September 6, 2011, no. 159, the so-called “Anti-Mafia Code,” particularly Articles 54, 55 paragraph 3, 59, and 61. These articles govern patrimonial prevention procedures, seizure, confiscation, and the modalities for third-party protection. The Anti-Mafia Code provides a specific mechanism for verifying credit and real rights claimed by third parties over seized and confiscated assets, granting the prevention judge exclusive jurisdiction for such assessments. The objective is twofold:

• To ensure the effectiveness of prevention measures in the fight against organized crime.
• To ensure that third-party rights are examined in a context that takes into account the specificities of the prevention procedure, avoiding conflicts of jurisdiction or conflicting rulings.

The Court thus reaffirmed that the revocatory action, while a legitimate instrument for creditor protection in civil and bankruptcy law, cannot overcome the confiscatory power of prevention confiscation, which has its own autonomous and preeminent public function.

Conclusions: A Necessary Balance Between Asset Protection and Bankruptcy Law

Ruling no. 19469/2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a definitive point in the complex interaction between patrimonial prevention measures and bankruptcy law. It clarifies that the preeminence of prevention confiscation, once it becomes final, prevails over subsequent ordinary revocatory rulings, provided that the trustee did not actively participate in the prevention proceedings to assert its rights before the competent judge. This principle reinforces the idea that third-party protection over assets subject to prevention measures must be exercised within the prevention proceedings themselves, before its natural judge. For legal professionals and companies, this ruling underscores the importance of careful assessment of procedures and timing for the protection of their rights in contexts involving patrimonial prevention measures, highlighting the need for an integrated and timely approach to avoid losing opportunities for asset recovery.