Commentary on Judgment No. 17174 of 2024: Asset Prevention Measures and the Judge's Investigative Powers

The recent judgment No. 17174 of January 26, 2024, filed on April 24, 2024, provides an important opportunity for reflection on the subject of asset prevention measures, particularly those adopted before the entry into force of Legislative Decree No. 159 of 2011. In this case, the Collegio annulled with referral a provision of the Court of Crotone, highlighting the fundamental necessity of adequate exercise of investigative powers by the delegated judge.

The Regulatory and Legal Context

The judgment in question falls within a complex regulatory context, where asset prevention measures are governed by specific rules. In particular, Legislative Decree No. 159 of 2011 introduced important innovations regarding prevention measures, but the case at hand refers to provisions in force before its implementation. The headnote of the judgment reads:

Asset prevention measures ordered before the entry into force of Legislative Decree No. 159 of 2011 - Order approving the management account of judicial administrators - Failure to exercise investigative powers by the delegated judge - Violation of law - Existence - Factual situation. Regarding asset prevention measures ordered before the entry into force of Legislative Decree of September 6, 2011, No. 159, the order by which the collegio, following the setting of the hearing pursuant to art. 5 of Ministerial Decree of February 1, 1991, No. 293, approves the management account of judicial administrators presupposes the exercise by the delegated judge, in case of disputes or documentary deficiencies, of the investigative powers provided for by the aforementioned discipline, the omission of which constitutes a violation of law, with reference to art. 125, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Factual situation in which the case was referred to the collegio in the absence of documentation concerning the operations carried out by the judicial administrator, the retrieval of which, despite the party's requests, had not been solicited by the delegated judge).

This headnote emphasizes the importance of procedural adequacy in the context of asset prevention measures, where the correct exercise of powers by the judge is crucial to ensure respect for the rights of the parties involved.

Implications of the Judgment

The judgment highlights some fundamental aspects of criminal proceedings and prevention measures:

• Importance of Investigative Powers: The delegated judge has the obligation to exercise investigative powers, especially in the presence of disputes or lack of documentation.
• Violation of Law: The failure to activate investigative powers constitutes a violation of law, potentially creating a margin of error that can prejudice the fairness of the proceedings.
• Necessary Referral: The annulment with referral highlights the need for a reassessment of the case, thus ensuring adequate legal protection.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 17174 of 2024 represents an important confirmation of the principle that the correct exercise of investigative powers by the judge is essential for the legitimacy of asset prevention measures. This ruling not only reaffirms the parties' right to a fair trial but also underscores the judge's duty to act with diligence and attention. Legal professionals must draw inspiration from this judgment to ensure that procedures are always respected, thus contributing to a fairer and more transparent justice system.