Judgment no. 1251 of 2024 on the confiscation of assets fictitiously registered to third parties

Judgment no. 1251 of 2024 by the Court of Milan has raised important issues regarding the confiscation of assets fictitiously registered to third parties. This ruling, which addresses the legitimacy and interest of third parties in challenging the prerequisites for the application of the measure, offers a significant legal framework for those involved in such situations.

Content of the Judgment

The Court declared inadmissible the possibility for a third party to challenge the prerequisites for the application of confiscation. In particular, it is stated that the third party has the right to claim exclusively the actual ownership and property of the assets subject to confiscation. However, they cannot challenge fundamental aspects such as the dangerousness condition or the disproportion between the value of the asset and the declared income.

This principle is based on Legislative Decree of September 6, 2011, no. 159, which governs preventive measures and asset confiscation. The Court thus reiterated the importance of maintaining a balance between the protection of property rights and public security needs.

Implications for Third Parties Involved

For third parties in similar situations, this means that:

• They can prove the actual ownership of the assets.
• They cannot challenge the confiscation measure based on issues of dangerousness or the origin of the asset.
• They must face the complexity of current legislation and its practical applications.

Confiscation of assets fictitiously registered to a third party - Legitimacy and interest of the third party in challenging the prerequisites for the application of the measure to the subject - Exclusion - Reasons. In the case of a preventive confiscation concerning assets deemed fictitiously registered to a third party, the latter can claim exclusively the actual ownership and property of the assets under restraint, fulfilling the relevant burden of allegation, but is not entitled to challenge the prerequisites for the application of the measure, such as the condition of dangerousness, the disproportion between the value of the confiscated asset and the declared income, as well as the origin of the asset itself, which only the subject can have an interest in asserting.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 1251 of 2024 represents an important step in defining the rules relating to the confiscation of assets fictitiously registered to third parties. It clarifies the limitations of third parties' rights and emphasizes the need for a clear distinction between property rights and preventive measures adopted by the State. In a context where public security is a fundamental objective, this ruling provides useful guidance for all those involved in such proceedings, highlighting the importance of adequate legal advice to navigate these complex legal dynamics.