Money Laundering and Fraudulent Transfer of Assets: Cassation No. 13083/2025 Clarifies the Relationship Between Articles 648-bis and 512-bis of the Criminal Code

With ruling No. 13083/2025, filed on April 3, 2025, the Sixth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation addressed a delicate issue: when does the fraudulent transfer of assets (Art. 512-bis of the Criminal Code) remain autonomous, and when is it instead absorbed into the broader crime of money laundering (Art. 648-bis of the Criminal Code)? The verdict, stemming from an appeal filed by A. B. against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria, offers valuable insights for legal professionals, investigators, and businesses.

Regulatory Context

The legislator has established two seemingly related provisions:

• Art. 648-bis of the Criminal Code – punishes anyone who substitutes, transfers, or uses in economic activities money, goods, or other benefits derived from a crime, thereby obstructing their illicit origin.
• Art. 512-bis of the Criminal Code – penalizes anyone who fictitiously attributes ownership of assets or funds to third parties with the aim of evading confiscation or facilitating illicit activities.

Both offenses aim to target the management of illicit proceeds; however, Art. 512-bis contains a saving clause ("unless the act constitutes a more serious crime"), intended to yield to more severe offenses. It is precisely on this point that the Court of Cassation has ruled.

The Core of the Ruling

The crime of money laundering, being a crime of free form and potentially progressive formation, achievable also through multiple acts aimed at obstructing the illicit origin of money, goods, or other benefits, absorbs the crime of fraudulent transfer of assets by virtue of the saving clause referred to in Art. 512-bis of the Criminal Code, in cases where the latter constitutes a segment of the more complex money laundering conduct. Commentary: The Court qualifies money laundering as a "crime of progressive formation." If the typical conduct referred to in Art. 512-bis represents only a stage – that is, one act among many aimed at concealing the origin of the asset – it loses its autonomy and is absorbed. Consequently, where the fictitious transfer of assets is functional to a broader scheme of concealment, the judge must charge only Art. 648-bis, with evident implications for penalties, statutes of limitations, and investigative tools (e.g., wiretaps under Art. 266 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

In this specific case, the defense argued that the fictitious corporate contributions had autonomous purposes, but the Supreme Court held that they were part of a unified money laundering scheme, annulling the second-instance judgment without referral to eliminate the duplication of offenses.

Operational Implications

For investigators and defense counsel, the ruling suggests some guidelines:

• Unity of Criminal Design: It must be assessed whether the various acts are functional to a global concealment project.
• Alternative Charging: The Public Prosecutor may hypothesize both offenses in the precautionary phase, but in the trial phase, they must select the more serious one.
• Confiscation and Preventive Measures: Absorption does not preclude the application of extended confiscation under Art. 240-bis of the Criminal Code, provided the prerequisites are met.
• Consistency with ECHR Jurisprudence: Avoiding double incrimination protects the principle of substantial ne bis in idem (Art. 4 of Protocol 7 of the ECHR).

Conclusions

Ruling No. 13083/2025 confirms a previously established trend (see Cass. 38141/2022 and 39489/2023) and clearly redefines the boundaries between money laundering and fraudulent transfer of assets. The saving clause in Art. 512-bis acts as a true "filter": when there is a single act of concealment, the residual offense yields to money laundering. Understanding this dynamic is essential for correctly setting up investigations, defense strategies, and corporate compliance. Ultimately, the ruling reaffirms the need to avoid punitive overlaps and promotes a systematic reading of patrimonial criminal law, in line with the principles of proportionality and reasonableness of the legal system.