Judgment No. 16997/2024: Specific Intent in Fraudulent Transfer of Assets

Judgment No. 16997 of March 28, 2024, issued by the Court of Catanzaro, has sparked widespread debate regarding the concept of specific intent in the context of fraudulent transfer of assets. In particular, the Court has established that the fictitious holder of an asset does not necessarily need to be driven by specific intent, contrary to what was established in previous rulings. This change in regulatory interpretation represents a crucial aspect in the fight against economic crime and the evasion of preventive measures.

The Regulatory and Legal Context

Fraudulent transfer of assets is governed by Article 512 bis of the Italian Criminal Code. This offense occurs when, through simulated or fraudulent acts, a person attempts to remove assets from their patrimony, thereby evading possible preventive measures. The judgment in question highlights how the subjective element of the fictitious holder may not consist of specific intent, but rather in the awareness of the intent of others.

The Ruling's Maxim and Its Interpretation

Fraudulent transfer of assets - Complicity in the offense - Subjective element of the fictitious holder of the asset - Specific intent - Necessity - Exclusion – Reasons. Regarding fraudulent transfer of assets, the fictitious holder of the asset does not necessarily need to be driven by specific intent, which, on the other hand, characterizes the conduct of the principal, the sole subject directly interested in evading the possible adoption of preventive measures against them, it being sufficient, however, to be aware of the specific intent of others.

This maxim establishes a fundamental difference between the fictitious holder and the principal, who must act with specific intent. The fictitious holder, on the other hand, may simply be aware of the fraudulent intentions of others. This distinction has important implications for criminal liability and the definition of roles in situations of complicity in an offense.

Practical and Legal Implications

The consequences of this judgment are manifold:

• Strengthening of preventive measures against the fraudulent transfer of assets.
• Clarification of the role and responsibility of fictitious holders in criminal proceedings.
• Possibility of greater application of criminal laws in the economic and financial sphere.

In conclusion, judgment No. 16997 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the understanding and application of Italian criminal law regarding fraudulent transfers of assets, bringing a new interpretation to a complex and highly relevant legal issue.