Cassazione n. 14483/2025: confiscation by equivalent value also affects joint accounts

With judgment of 5 March 2025, filed on 14 April 2025, no. 14483, the Second Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation returns to rule on the delicate issue of confiscation by equivalent value of sums of money present in a joint bank account, a recurring theme in tax crime proceedings. The case originated from a conviction handed down by the Court of Appeal of Turin to G. P., accused of tax violations, to whom the confiscatory measure was applied to the bank assets shared with a family member unrelated to the facts.

The core of the decision

The judges of legitimacy, while partially annulling the contested decision, reaffirmed an already established principle: money deposited in a joint account acquires a common destination for the account holders, and therefore can be fully seized by the judicial authority to satisfy the confiscatory claim. The only limit is the proof, borne by the third party, of the exclusive attribution of a portion of the sums to them.

In matters of patrimonial security measures, the confiscation by equivalent value of sums of money deposited in a joint bank account with a subject unrelated to the crime is legitimate, as the deposit into the account imparts a common destination to the sums for the joint account holders, without the relevance, for this purpose, of presumptions or restrictions imposed by the civil code to regulate solidarity in internal relations between creditors and debtors, without prejudice to the third party's right to prove the exclusive attribution to themselves of their share of the sums in deposit.

The Court thus reiterates the path already laid down by previous consistent rulings (Cass. 40175/2007, 45353/2011, 36175/2017) and by the United Sections 4880/2015: civil presumptions of pro-quota ownership (Articles 1854 and 1298 of the Civil Code) do not limit the power of confiscation. The aim of depriving the offender of the profit prevails, in implementation of Article 240 of the Criminal Code and, specifically, of Article 12-bis of Legislative Decree 74/2000.

Protections for the unrelated joint account holder

However, the ruling does not leave good-faith individuals without defence. The third party may:

• Request in the enforcement proceedings the return of their own sums, by providing documentary proof of their lawful and personal origin;
• Request the revocation or reduction of the confiscation, by providing evidence that proves their financial autonomy;
• Take civil action for recourse against the convicted person, once the tax claim has been satisfied.

The Court expressly recalls the burden of proof on the third party: it is not enough to claim a theoretical 50% share; specific indications must be provided (demonstrable deposits, traceability of funds, payslips, etc.).

Systematic aspects and operational insights

The decision is part of a jurisprudential trend of progressive extension of patrimonial measures, in line with European guidelines on the seizure of illicit proceeds (EU Directive 2014/42). For lawyers and tax consultants, two lines of action emerge:

• Prevention: carefully evaluate the choice of joint accounts, especially if a partner or family member is exposed to criminal risks.
• Timely defence: in the event of seizure, immediately start collecting evidence of the lawful origin of the sums, to avoid it becoming too late at the stage of definitive confiscation.

From a theoretical point of view, the debate remains open on the adequacy of the current legislation to reconcile the need for effectiveness of the punitive system and the protection of private property under Article 42 of the Constitution. However, the judgment under review confirms that the Cassation's orientation clearly favours the former.

Conclusions

Cass. 14483/2025 emphasizes that joint ownership does not represent a safe haven against confiscation by equivalent value. Those who intend to share their account with others must be aware that the entire balance may be seized in the event of criminal liability of one of the joint account holders. At the same time, the unrelated third party retains means of protection, but only if able to punctually demonstrate the lawful origin of their funds. Ultimately, the ruling offers valuable guidance for both judicial practice and preventive advice, confirming the importance of transparent and documented management of personal finances.