Fraudulent Evasion of Taxes: The Liability of the Nominee Holder According to Judgment No. 29372/2025

The landscape of criminal tax law is constantly evolving, and rulings by the Court of Cassation play a fundamental role in defining the scope of individual liability. A recent judgment, No. 29372, filed on August 8, 2025, fits precisely into this context, clarifying a crucial aspect of the crime of fraudulent evasion of taxes, with particular reference to the position of the nominee holder. This decision, authored by Dr. A. Scarcella, represents a significant warning to all those who, in various capacities, may be involved in opaque financial transactions, even if only by lending their name.

Fraudulent Evasion and the Role of the Nominee Holder

The crime of fraudulent evasion of taxes, provided for by Article 11 of Legislative Decree No. 74/2000, punishes anyone who carries out simulated or fraudulent acts on their own or others' assets that are capable of rendering the compulsory collection procedure wholly or partially ineffective. This provision aims to protect the treasury from the conduct of individuals who seek to shield their assets from the State's enforcement actions to avoid paying due taxes. But what happens when assets are formally registered to a third party, a so-called "nominee holder"?

Jurisprudence has long addressed the issue of complicity in a crime, governed by Article 110 of the Criminal Code, applying it also to tax offenses. The central question that emerged, and which the judgment in question has clearly resolved, concerned the subjective element required for the nominee holder's liability. Was mere awareness of the evasive purpose sufficient, or was specific intent, i.e., the intention to assist the principal in evading taxes, necessary?

In the context of fraudulent evasion of taxes, the nominee holder of the asset is liable as an accomplice under Article 110 of the Criminal Code if they are aware of the evasive or facilitating purpose pursued by the perpetrator of the conduct sanctioned by the criminal provision, while it is not necessary for them to also be driven by the specific intent of the principal. (Case in which the Court found no grounds for appeal in the finding of liability of a subject who had luxury cars registered in their name without plausible justification, a circumstance considered symptomatic of their awareness of the evasive purpose).

The Court of Cassation, with judgment No. 29372/2025, has reiterated and clarified a fundamental principle: the nominee holder is liable as an accomplice for the crime of fraudulent evasion if they are aware of the evasive or facilitating purpose pursued by the subject seeking to evade taxes. What is not required, and this is the crucial point, is that the nominee holder is driven by the specific intent of the principal, meaning the direct and specific intention to defraud the tax authorities. Awareness is sufficient.

To make the concept clearer, the Court referred to a case where a subject, Mr. Z. P.M., had luxury cars registered in his name without any plausible justification. This circumstance was considered by the Court to be symptomatic of his awareness of the evasive purpose. In other words, it was not necessary to prove that Z. P.M. had a specific intent to defraud the treasury personally; it was enough that he was aware that the nominee registration operation served someone else, in this case S. S., to evade tax payments.

Subjective Element and Practical Implications

The distinction between "awareness of the evasive purpose" and "specific intent of the principal" is of fundamental importance. Specific intent implies a further and specific aim, which goes beyond the mere intention to perform the act. In the case of fraudulent evasion, the specific intent of the principal is the will to remove assets from compulsory collection. For the nominee holder, however, the Court has deemed sufficient the awareness that the act of nominee registration is a tool for such an evasive purpose. This means that even those who act in a seemingly passive role, by lending their name or assets, can incur serious criminal liability if they are aware of the illicit purpose of the operation.

The practical implications of this interpretation are significant:

• Increased Caution: Greater attention is required from anyone invited to register assets belonging to others, especially if they are valuable and lack valid economic or family justifications.
• Proof of Awareness: Awareness can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as the lack of a plausible economic or personal relationship between the parties, the disproportion between the nominee's assets and the registered asset, or the complexity of the operation.
• Extended Liability: The judgment extends the scope of liability, including subjects who may not be the "masterminds" of the fraud but facilitate its execution through their participation, even if passive.

This ruling aligns with previous jurisprudential trends, as recalled by Supreme Rulings No. 38044 of 2021 and No. 19108 of 2024, which already tended to strengthen the prosecution's position in pursuing complicity in tax offenses.

Conclusions: A Warning for Tax Transparency

The judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 29372 of 2025 represents an important piece in the mosaic of the fight against tax evasion and fraudulent evasion. It strongly reiterates that the judicial system is vigilant in unmasking not only the main perpetrators of fraud but also those who, through their conduct, facilitate its realization. Mere awareness of the evasive purpose, even in the absence of specific intent, is sufficient to constitute complicity in the crime.

This principle is a clear warning for transparency and legality in asset transactions. In an increasingly complex economic and fiscal context, it is essential that every citizen and professional is aware of their responsibilities and the consequences that may arise from "lending" their name or person for operations that conceal illicit purposes. In case of doubts or complex situations, consulting expert professionals in criminal tax law is always the wisest choice to avoid unpleasant and serious legal consequences.