Undergoing an asset seizure within the scope of a criminal proceeding is an experience that generates profound apprehension and uncertainty. Having bank accounts, real estate, or business assets frozen during the preliminary investigation phase can paralyze economic activity and compromise personal stability, often before any culpability has been established. As a criminal lawyer in Milan, I fully understand the urgency of intervening to limit the damages arising from real precautionary measures that appear disproportionate or illegitimate.
The Italian legal system provides specific tools to challenge these measures, but it is crucial to act promptly. The primary objective is to obtain the return of what has been unlawfully withheld from the legitimate owner, demonstrating the absence of the prerequisites that justified the measure. Only through precise legal defense can one restore their patrimonial rights and subsequently assess any actions for compensation for damages suffered due to legal proceedings that prove to be unfounded.
In our legal system, seizure can take various forms, primarily distinguishable as evidentiary seizure, preventive seizure, and conservatory seizure. Evidentiary seizure aims to secure sources of evidence, while preventive seizure aims to prevent the free availability of an item related to the crime from aggravating or prolonging its consequences. Often, however, the application of these measures occurs automatically, without a real assessment of the specific case. For an expert criminal law attorney, the first step is to analyze the seizure decree to identify formal or substantive defects.
To obtain the release of seized assets, it is necessary to demonstrate the lack of fumus commissi delicti (indications of guilt) or periculum in mora (concrete and current danger arising from the availability of the asset). The law allows for a review request to the Tribunal of Liberty or an appeal to the Court of Cassation, instruments that must be activated within very short, mandatory deadlines. Furthermore, should the seizure prove not only unfounded but the result of gross errors or negligence, the delicate issue of liability for damages caused to the suspect arises, a path that requires a deep understanding of case law regarding fair compensation and the civil liability of magistrates.
The approach of Adv. Marco Bianucci, an expert criminal lawyer in Milan, is based on a rigorous and immediate analysis of the procedural documents. As soon as a client contacts the firm, a detailed verification of the legitimacy of the confiscatory measure is initiated. The defense strategy is not limited to mere formal contestation but delves into the merits of the accusations to dismantle the accusatory framework supporting the real precautionary measure.
The Bianucci Law Firm operates with the goal of obtaining the release of seized assets in the shortest possible time, aware that every day of asset unavailability exacerbates the economic and reputational damage to the client. Adv. Marco Bianucci carefully evaluates the opportunity to file an appeal with the Review Tribunal, drafting defense briefs supported, if necessary, by expert technical opinions to demonstrate the lawfulness of the asset's origin or the absence of a connection with the alleged crime. In the event of a revocation of the seizure due to the absence of prerequisites, the firm also assists the client in the complex phase of evaluating potential compensation claims for the prejudice suffered due to the prolonged and unjustified unavailability of their assets.
To unblock a bank account, it is necessary to submit a request for release to the Public Prosecutor or, in case of rejection or inaction, file a review request with the competent Tribunal within 10 days of the measure's execution or notification. The assistance of a criminal lawyer is essential to argue the absence of a connection between the seized sums and the alleged crime.
Preventive seizure does not have a fixed duration and can theoretically last until a final judgment. However, it loses its effectiveness if the precautionary needs cease or if revocation measures are issued following defense requests accepted by the Judge. For this reason, it is crucial to act immediately to request its revocation.
If, at the end of the proceedings, the person is found to be unrelated to the facts or the crime is found to be non-existent, it is possible to consider actions for damages, although Italian legislation is very restrictive. There are provisions such as compensation for unjust detention (in cases of pre-trial detention) or the Pinto Law for the unreasonable duration of the trial, while specific compensation for seizure requires proof of serious fault or malice in the judicial action.
In the event of a final acquittal, the Judge must order the return of the seized assets to the rightful owner, unless they are inherently illicit assets or subject to mandatory confiscation. Adv. Marco Bianucci ensures that the order for restitution is promptly executed by the competent authorities.
If your assets have been seized and you believe the measure is unjust or disproportionate, it is essential to act without delay. Adv. Marco Bianucci is available to examine your situation and define the best strategy to protect your assets and your rights. Contact the firm at Via Alberto da Giussano, 26 in Milan for a confidential and professional consultation.