Commentary on Judgment No. 15673 of 2024: The Role of Third Parties in Preventive Seizure
Judgment No. 15673 of March 13, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial aspect of criminal law concerning preventive seizure and the right of challenge by third-party titleholders. Specifically, this decision clarifies that a third party with an interest in the return of the asset can legitimately challenge not only the fictitious nature of the titleholder of the asset subject to seizure but also the objective confiscability of the asset itself.
Context of the Judgment
The case at hand refers to a preventive seizure aimed at confiscation pursuant to art. 85-bis of Presidential Decree No. 309 of October 9, 1990. The Court established that the third-party titleholder has the right to demonstrate the absence of the *fumus commissi delicti* (likelihood of a crime having been committed) and *periculum in mora* (danger in delay), which are essential elements for the lawfulness of the seizure. This principle is based on an extensive interpretation of current regulations, which protect the rights of those who, despite being the titleholder, have had no involvement in illicit activities.
Headnote of the Judgment
Third party with an interest in the return – Challenge to the prerequisites for seizure – Admissibility – Reasons – Factual situation. In matters of preventive seizure, the third-party titleholder of the seized asset is legitimized to challenge, in addition to the fictitious nature of the title, also the objective confiscability of the asset in the absence of *fumus commissi delicti* and *periculum in mora*, as the absence of the prerequisites for confiscation can support the thesis of the non-fictitious, but real, nature of the title. (Factual situation relating to preventive seizure aimed at confiscation pursuant to art. 85-bis of Presidential Decree No. 309 of October 9, 1990).
This headnote highlights how the Court of Cassation recognizes the third party's right to defend themselves, stating that the absence of prerequisites for confiscation can prove the real title of the asset. This represents a significant step forward in protecting the rights of third parties, who often find themselves involved in criminal proceedings without any responsibility.
Implications for Criminal Law
The implications of this judgment are significant and fit into a broader debate concerning the balance between the fight against crime and the safeguarding of individual rights. It is fundamental that those subject to preventive seizure can exercise their right to defense, effectively challenging the actions of the authorities. Among the key points, we can list:
- Legitimization of the third party to challenge the seizure;
- Necessity to demonstrate the fictitious nature of the title;
- Assessment of objective confiscability in the absence of *fumus commissi delicti*.
Conclusions
In conclusion, judgment No. 15673 of 2024 offers an important perspective on the legitimization of third parties in the context of preventive seizure. The possibility of challenging confiscation underscores the importance of ensuring a fair trial and the defense of individual rights, which are cornerstones of our legal system. With this ruling, the Court of Cassation not only clarifies the rights of third parties but also contributes to a broader reflection on procedural guarantees in criminal matters.
