Confiscation by Equivalent Value and Statute of Limitations: The Supreme Court's Stance in Ruling No. 25200 of 2025

The Supreme Court of Cassation, with Ruling No. 25200 of June 18, 2025, addresses a crucial issue: confiscation by equivalent value and its applicability to time-barred offenses. This decision, reported by Dr. F. D'A. and presided over by Dr. E. A., reaffirms the non-retroactivity of judicial interpretations unfavorable to the defendant.

Confiscation by Equivalent Value: Nature and Limits

Confiscation by equivalent value (Art. 322 ter of the Italian Criminal Code) is a patrimonial measure that seizes assets equal in value to the proceeds of the crime. The United Sections (Ruling No. 13783 of 2024, Massini case) redefined it as "restorative" (if it does not exceed the economic advantage), moving beyond a punitive view. However, the ruling in question delimits its temporal effectiveness, denying retroactive application to offenses that have expired and were committed before Article 578-bis of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

The jurisprudential shift concerning the nature of confiscation by equivalent value, following the United Sections' ruling No. 13783 of 2024, filed in 2025, Massini, which holds that it is restorative when it does not exceed the economic advantage gained by the perpetrator from the crime, does not legitimize the application of the confiscatory measure in cases of offenses committed before the entry into force of Article 578-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the interpretation of the latter provision in conformity with Article 7 of the ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR requires excluding the "in malam partem" retroactive effect of the new interpretative approach, given its reasonable unforeseeability compared to the previously consolidated interpretative framework regarding the punitive function of the institution.

This non-retroactivity is mandated by adherence to fundamental principles of criminal law and human rights: Article 7 of the ECHR, Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR, and Article 25, paragraph 2, of the Italian Constitution.

Non-Retroactivity and Fundamental Guarantees

This ruling safeguards legal certainty and the predictability of judicial decisions. The retroactive application of a more burdensome judicial interpretation, which would render confiscation applicable to offenses already time-barred before Article 578-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would violate:

• The principle of legality and non-retroactivity of the more unfavorable criminal law (Art. 25 of the Constitution, Art. 7 ECHR).
• The predictability of judicial decisions, undermining reliance on the previous interpretative framework.
• The protection of property (Art. 1 Protocol 1 ECHR), by introducing an unforeseeable confiscatory measure.

Conclusions: Legal Certainty as a Cornerstone Principle

Supreme Court Ruling No. 25200 of 2025 stands as a bulwark for legal certainty. It reiterates that interpretative changes must not compromise the fundamental guarantees of the defendant, ensuring a balance between crime repression and the protection of individual liberties, in line with constitutional and European principles.