Criminal Cassation No. 12732/2025: Fraudulent Transfer of Assets and the Responsibility of the Nominee

With ruling No. 12732, filed on April 2, 2025, the Second Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation re-examines the offense of fraudulent transfer of assets (Art. 512-bis of the Italian Criminal Code), confirming the conviction of A. P. previously issued by the Court of Appeal of Palermo. The Panel, presided over by A. P., reiterates that the conduct of someone who fictitiously acquires another's assets to evade patrimonial prevention measures constitutes complicity in the crime, dispelling doubts about the multi-subjective nature of the offense.

The Procedural Case

The case concerned the purely formal transfer of company shares, intended to shield assets from possible anti-mafia seizure. The defendant, lacking real management powers, had agreed to appear as the owner, thereby enabling the continuation of illicit money laundering activities. The defense had argued for the subjective extraneousness of the nominee, classifying Art. 512-bis of the Criminal Code as a crime with "restricted subjectivity." The Court, referencing recent case law (Cass. 35826/2019; SU 8545/2020), rejected this argument.

The crime of fraudulent transfer of assets is not an improperly multi-subjective crime, but rather a free-form offense realized through the fictitious attribution of ownership or availability of money or other assets or benefits. Therefore, whoever fictitiously becomes the owner of such "res," with the aim of circumventing regulations on patrimonial prevention or smuggling, or to facilitate the commission of crimes of receiving stolen goods, money laundering, or the use of assets of illicit origin, is liable for complicity with the subject who committed the fictitious attribution, as they contribute to the violation of the interest protected by the norm through their conscious and voluntary conduct.

The Court thus emphasizes that the nominee is not a mere "front man": their conscious adherence represents an indispensable element of the offense against economic public order. Even the absence of direct financial gain does not exclude punishability, as the protected interest is the state's interest in the traceability of assets and the prevention of their illicit circulation.

Constituent Elements of the Crime

• Materially Relevant Conduct: fictitious attribution of ownership or availability of assets.
• Evasive Purpose: circumvention of patrimonial prevention regulations or facilitation of crimes of receiving stolen goods, money laundering, or use of illicit assets.
• Subjective Element: general intent, consisting of the consciousness and will to contribute to the fraudulent operation.

The Supreme Court reiterates that the offense is "free-form": the specific method of transfer (sale, donation, fiduciary registration) is irrelevant, as long as the operation achieves the prohibited purpose.

Complicity of the Nominee

Refuting the minority view that considered the nominee as a mere passive recipient, the Cassation Court affirms the full applicability of Art. 110 of the Criminal Code. The front man indeed participates in the violation of the legal interest through a conscious causal contribution, even when their role is limited to formal appearance. This leads to the legitimacy of seizures and confiscations affecting the nominee's assets, in line with Art. 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Art. 12-quinquies of Law 356/1992.

Practical Implications

The ruling has significant implications for:

• Professionals (notaries, accountants, lawyers) who are called upon to verify the legality of clients' asset operations.
• Businesses operating in sectors at high risk of criminal infiltration, which are forced to strengthen their compliance measures.
• Individuals who, even out of mere courtesy, agree to appear as registered owners: the "favor" can result in criminal liability.

Conclusions

Ruling 12732/2025 confirms the Cassation Court's strict approach in combating illicit assets. The nominee, far from being a "mere front man," is considered an accomplice in the crime of fraudulent transfer of assets, with all the ensuing consequences in terms of penalties and patrimonial measures. Economic operators and consultants are warned: the apparent neutrality of certain corporate operations can conceal significant criminal risk, requiring accurate prior checks and adequate transparency protocols.