Preventive Confiscation: The Court of Cassation on "New Evidence" for Revocation - Judgment no. 28460/2025

Preventive confiscation is an incisive tool against the illicit accumulation of wealth, allowing assets to be seized even without a conviction. Its revocation is a legal issue of great importance. The Court of Cassation, with Judgment no. 28460 of 14/07/2025 (filed on 04/08/2025), has clarified the requirements for considering an accounting technical consultancy as "new evidence" for the purpose of revocation. A ruling that establishes precise boundaries, profoundly influencing defense strategies.

The Context: Preventive Confiscation and "New Evidence"

Asset prevention measures, governed by the Anti-Mafia Code (Legislative Decree 159/2011), aim to prevent individuals deemed socially dangerous from possessing assets of dubious origin. Once ordered, confiscation is final; its revocation is permitted only in the presence of "new evidence" capable of radically altering the evidentiary framework. The Court of Appeal of Palermo had rejected a request for revocation on 23/10/2024. The Court of Cassation, presided over by Judge P. R. and rapporteur Judge S. I., confirmed this stance in the case of V. P. and Public Prosecutor S. G. The central issue was to determine when a technical consultancy, particularly an accounting one, could qualify as "new evidence."

The Supreme Court's Ruling: Strict Criteria

The Supreme Court has precisely outlined the conditions under which an accounting technical consultancy can constitute "new evidence" suitable for the revocation of confiscation. A re-reading of the data is not sufficient; actual innovation is required. The ruling's maxim is categorical:

In matters of revocation of preventive confiscation, accounting technical consultancy can constitute "new evidence" only if it concerns assets that have actually emerged, were unknown, or could not have been known by the parties affected by the measure, or if it is based on accounting criteria not previously used by the expert community, because it is based on general principles, national or international, not yet developed or disseminated.

This principle establishes two alternative but very stringent paths for the admissibility of "new evidence":

• Emergent and Unknowable Assets: The consultancy must be based on facts or assets that emerged after the confiscation order, which were not known or foreseeable at the time of the original decision. Not a failure to file, but an objective impossibility of prior knowledge.
• Innovative Accounting Criteria: Alternatively, the expert report must be based on accounting methodologies or principles that, at the time of confiscation, had not yet been developed or widely recognized by the scientific or professional community. An evolution in accounting knowledge is required.

The Court of Cassation excludes that new consultancy constitutes "new evidence" if it merely reworks already available data with already known criteria. The emphasis is placed on actual novelty, whether factual or methodological, to ensure that revocation does not become a tool for endless revisions and to preserve the stability of preventive measures.

Conclusions and Implications

Judgment no. 28460 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is a key ruling for criminal law and preventive measures. It clarifies the limits and conditions for the configuration of "new evidence" through accounting technical consultancy for the purpose of revoking confiscation. The Supreme Court reiterates the exceptional nature of such revocation, linking it to requirements of objective factual or methodological innovation. This compels legal practitioners to adopt a scrupulous and forward-looking defense strategy from the outset, as the possibility of reconsideration is tied to extremely stringent conditions. This rigor aims to balance the need for justice with legal certainty, strengthening the effectiveness of confiscatory measures.