Commentary on Judgment No. 14047 of 2024: Precautionary Seizure and Corporate Liability

Judgment No. 14047 of February 13, 2024, represents an important ruling on corporate criminal liability, particularly concerning the precautionary seizure provided for by Article 53 of Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2001. This article outlines the legal framework regarding the possibility of adopting precautionary measures on the assets of legal entities, highlighting the importance of justifying the "periculum" to warrant such orders.

Precautionary Seizure under Legislative Decree No. 231/2001

Precautionary seizure is a precautionary measure that allows for the restriction of access to assets that may constitute the price or profit of a crime. The judgment under review emphasizes that this measure must be accompanied by a clear and concise justification regarding the "periculum in mora," meaning the risk that the assets may be dissipated or removed during the time required for the judgment to be finalized.

• Precautionary seizure must be proportionate and adequate to the highlighted risk.
• A specific assessment of the circumstances of the case is necessary.
• The justification must demonstrate the urgency of adopting the precautionary measure.

The Ruling's Maxim and Its Significance

Corporate criminal liability - Precautionary seizure pursuant to Article 53 of Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2001 - "Periculum" - Justification - Necessity. In matters of corporate and legal entity criminal liability, the precautionary seizure pursuant to Article 53 of Legislative Decree No. 231 of June 8, 2001, of assets constituting the price and profit of a crime subject to mandatory confiscation, including by equivalent value, must include a concise justification of the "periculum in mora." This justification must be related – in compliance with the criteria of adequacy and proportionality of the real measure – to the reasons that necessitate the anticipation of the confiscatory effect compared to the finalization of the judgment.

This maxim underscores the importance of detailed justification in the context of precautionary measures. It is not enough to state that a risk exists; it is crucial to demonstrate that the seizure is necessary and justified in relation to the specific situation. The Court of Cassation has reiterated that the justification of the "periculum in mora" must not only be present but also sufficiently robust to legitimize the precautionary measure.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 14047 of 2024 offers important insights into understanding the liability of legal entities and the operation of precautionary measures. The necessity for adequate and proportionate justification not only protects the rights of the entities involved but also contributes to ensuring a balance between crime repression and the safeguarding of legal certainty. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, and cases like this represent a step forward in defining a clear and coherent regulatory framework.