Violation of seals without seals: analysis of the Criminal Court of Cassation no. 13087/2025

With judgment no. 13087 filed on April 3, 2025, the Sixth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation returns to the topic, far from marginal, of violation of seals pursuant to art. 349 of the Italian Criminal Code. The decision deserves attention because it consolidates a jurisprudential orientation that expands the scope of application of the crime, detaching it from the material existence of seals or external signs of seizure. Below we examine its key passages and implications for legal professionals and individuals tasked with safeguarding assets under restraint.

The specific case and the legal principle

The defendant F. S., appointed custodian of a seized asset, had modified the asset without removing any physical seals: in fact, no seals had ever been affixed. The Court of Appeal of Messina had convicted him for violation of the obligation of preservation; the Court of Cassation partially annuls without referral but confirms the existence of the crime, clarifying that the core is the knowledge of the restraint, not the presence of a tangible seal.

The crime referred to in art. 349 of the Criminal Code is perfected by any conduct capable of evading the obligation of immutability of the asset, even in the absence of seals or external signs of the seizure having taken place, provided that the perpetrator of the act was in any case informed of the restraint placed on the asset. (Case in which the defendant had been appointed custodian of the seized asset).

In simple terms, the Court of Cassation states that what matters is the subjective element: knowing that the asset is under restraint. If, despite this awareness, the custodian alters it, the crime is committed even if no one has physically affixed a seal.

Regulatory framework and comparison with jurisprudence

Art. 349 of the Italian Criminal Code punishes "whoever violates seals (...) or, in any case, alters the state of the places or things seized". Since the famous ruling of the United Sections no. 5385/2010, doctrine has debated the meaning of "seals" and "non-seizability". The judgment under review:

• is in line with Cass. 43169/2018 and 3133/2014, which had already favored the rationale of protecting judicial authority over the asset;
• overcomes a purely formal view, focusing on the duty of active custody of the appointed custodian;
• implicitly refers to art. 324 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs seizures and the obligations of the custodian.

From a systematic point of view, the dictum appears consistent with art. 13 of the ECHR (effectiveness of remedies) and with the principle of proportionality: the protection of the restraint cannot depend on merely bureaucratic fulfillments, under penalty of the ineffectiveness of the precautionary measure.

Practical implications for professionals and custodians

The ruling sends a clear message to those, professionals or private individuals, appointed as judicial custodians:

• precise instructions must be requested from the competent authority;
• any modification of the asset must be authorized in writing;
• the failure to affix seals does not exempt from liability;
• non-compliance may constitute not only art. 349 of the Criminal Code, but also claims for damages under art. 2043 of the Italian Civil Code.

For defense lawyers, the strategic argument shifts to the actual notification of the restraint: demonstrating that the defendant was not clearly informed can make a difference, as emerges from rulings that have excluded intent in situations of procedural ambiguity.

Conclusions

Cass. pen. no. 13087/2025 confirms the centrality of the awareness of the restraint in the crime of violation of seals, decoupling punishable conduct from the existence of material signs. Legal professionals must therefore orient their practice towards substantial protection of the seizure, paying particular attention to the appointment and instruction of the custodian, while the latter must adopt diligent and proactive behavior. In the absence of seals, the criminal risk does not disappear: indeed, the Supreme Court reminds us that the law protects the seized asset itself, not the wax seal that marks it.