Cross-border money laundering and place of consummation: Cassation no. 14175/2025 sheds light on Italian jurisdiction

The issue of jurisdiction in money laundering offenses linked to international financial flows has been a subject of debate for years. The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 14175 of April 1, 2025 (filed April 10, 2025), intervenes again to define when conduct carried out partly on Italian territory is sufficient to establish the competence of our courts. The case originated from an electronic money transfer from a foreign account to an account held by a different individual at an Italian credit institution; a typical scenario in the era of digital payments, but one rich with practical implications for investigators, banks, and professionals.

The core of the decision

In matters of money laundering, the offense committed through cross-border "transfer" of money of illicit origin, due to its nature as a free-form crime with potentially prolonged consummation, is perfected at the time and place where any withdrawal or transfer of funds occurs, subsequent to previous deposits, from one bank account to another held by a different party and opened with a different credit institution. Therefore, for the assertion of Italian jurisdiction, it is sufficient that even just a fragment of the conduct has occurred within the State's territory.

The maxim, which echoes previous rulings from 2020 and the United Sections of 2017, highlights three key points: the nature of the crime as free-form, potentially prolonged consummation, and the relevance of any fraction of conduct in Italy. The Cassation thus consolidates the interpretative line initiated by Articles 9, 10, and 16 of the Criminal Code on territorial jurisdiction, read in conjunction with Article 648-bis of the Criminal Code.

When does Italian jurisdiction apply?

According to the judges, the crime of money laundering is not exhausted by the mere initial deposit of illicit proceeds into an account, but continues as long as movements aimed at hindering the identification of the origin persist. This grants a wide scope for national judicial authorities, who can intervene even if:

• the money originates from criminal conduct committed abroad;
• only one of the multiple transfers occurs on Italian territory;
• the perpetrator is a foreign national residing outside the EU;
• the destination account is held by a party formally unrelated to the facts.

The principle recalls what has already been affirmed in matters of cybercrime: the presence of a server in Italy is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. Similarly, here it is sufficient that the national banking system is involved even just once. This leads to the obligation for Italian credit institutions to promptly report suspicious transactions (Article 35 of Legislative Decree 231/2007), under penalty of administrative co-responsibility.

Procedural and investigative aspects

The panel presided over by A. P. reiterates that the classification as a free-form crime allows for the valorization of even minimal conduct: the act of withdrawing or crediting funds is sufficient to crystallize the offense. Consequently:

• the identification of the dies consumationis (day of consummation) shifts to the last relevant movement;
• the time interval between the various transfers can affect the calculation of the statute of limitations;
• seizures pursuant to Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may concern sums held in foreign accounts if linked to the "Italian portion" of the conduct.

The ruling also invites defense counsel to verify the adherence of the facts to the formula of "fragment of conduct": a random credit or one not attributable to the defendant's intent could, in theory, exclude the subjective element. The line remains thin and will be a source of further case law.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 14175/2025 strengthens the Cassation's approach in combating money laundering: Italian jurisdiction is easily established whenever the national banking circuit is touched. For those operating in the financial sector and for legal advisors, this necessitates attention to cross-border transactions and the traceability of flows. For defendants, the defense will need to focus on proving the effective link between the foreign and domestic conduct, while for investigators, the path opens to more incisive international investigations, leveraging mutual legal assistance treaties and European investigation orders.