Preventive Seizure and Sisma Bonus: Analysis of Cass. pen. no. 13339/2025

The ruling of the Sixth Criminal Section no. 13339/2025 of the Court of Cassation falls within the framework of an increasingly attentive jurisprudential trend regarding the criminal-tax aspects connected to building bonuses. At its core is the crime of undue receipt of public funds (Art. 316-ter of the Italian Criminal Code) committed through the acquisition, by means of invoice discounting, of non-existent tax credits relating to the so-called "sisma bonus acquisti" (seismic bonus for purchases). The Court clarifies the boundaries of the confiscatable profit, extending it also to the benefits derived from the assignment of the credit to third parties.

The Regulatory Framework

The legislator, with Art. 119 of Legislative Decree no. 34/2020, enhanced tax deductions for seismic safety, providing for their assignability. However, when the credit arises from works never carried out, the crime referred to in Art. 316-ter of the Italian Criminal Code is constituted. The public prosecutor can then request a preventive seizure aimed at direct confiscation or confiscation by equivalent value pursuant to Art. 322-ter of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, a measure founded on the public interest in recovering the illicit economic advantage.

The Ruling's Maxim and its Meaning

In the context of preventive seizure aimed at confiscation, direct or by equivalent value, pursuant to Art. 322-ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the profit of the crime of undue receipt of public funds, constituted by the acquisition, by means of invoice discounting, of non-existent tax credits relating to the so-called "sisma bonus acquisti" (in this case, due to the non-execution of interventions on the building heritage from which the right to tax deduction should have arisen), may legitimately include, in addition to the amount of the credit obtained, also the benefits derived by the perpetrator of the crime from the further assignment of said credit to third parties.

The Court expands the notion of "profit" to include both the immediate advantage (the fictitious credit) and the mediated advantage (the consideration obtained by assigning the credit). In this way, the judicial authority can seize the entire chain of economic benefit, preventing the perpetrator of the crime from divesting themselves of the asset to avoid confiscation.

Operational Implications for Companies, Professionals, and Credit Institutions

• Criminal liability of directors and technicians if they certify non-existent works.
• Increased exposure to seizures of accounts, real estate, or other assets, up to the amount not only of the credit but also of the price obtained from its assignment.
• Obligation for banks and assignees to conduct rigorous due diligence on acquired credits, to avoid involvement in "cascading" seizures (Art. 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
• Relevance for corporate compliance: Model 231 must include specific controls on building bonuses.

It should be noted that the Court refers to consistent precedents (nos. 23402/2024, 46354/2024, 11246/2022), thus emphasizing interpretative continuity: confiscation aims to recover the "real advantage," not to impose an additional punitive sanction.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 13339/2025 reiterates the strict approach of criminal jurisprudence regarding tax incentives. The message is clear: the profit of a tax offense is a broad concept, capable of encompassing any economic benefit, direct or indirect, derived from a fictitious credit. This requires operators in the sector, professionals, and financial intermediaries to increase their standards of control and transparency. For those involved in similar proceedings, it becomes crucial to demonstrate the genuineness of the works and good faith in the circulation of credits. The Firm is available to evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, defense strategies and prevention plans.