Re-employment of Illicit Assets: Cassation Ruling No. 24273/2025 and the Irrelevance of Dissimulation

The recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, Ruling No. 24273 of February 28, 2025 (filed on July 1, 2025), represents a fundamental reference point for understanding and applying the crime of employing money, goods, or other assets of illicit origin, governed by Article 648-ter of the Criminal Code. This decision, which quashes with referral a previous judgment by the Court of Appeal of Milan, definitively clarifies a crucial aspect: the act of re-employment does not require dissimulative characteristics to constitute the crime. This awaited clarification strengthens the protection of the integrity of the free market.

The Crime of Employing Assets of Illicit Origin: Art. 648-ter c.p.

Article 648-ter of the Criminal Code penalizes anyone who employs, substitutes, or transfers money, goods, or other assets originating from a non-negligent offense, or carries out other operations concerning them, in a manner that obstructs the identification of their criminal origin. This is a cornerstone provision in the fight against economic crime, aimed at targeting the phase following the commission of the predicate offense, preventing illicit proceeds from being reintroduced into the legal circuit and polluting the economy. However, its application has often generated interpretative debates, particularly regarding the necessity of a "dissimulative" element in the conduct.

The Principle of Ruling No. 24273/2025 and Its Significance

The core of the Cassation ruling is encapsulated in the following principle, which we report in full:

For the purpose of constituting the crime referred to in art. 648-ter of the Criminal Code, it is not necessary for the act of re-employment to exhibit dissimulative characteristics aimed at obstructing the identification or ascertainment of the illicit origin of the assets, as this offense protects, residually compared to those of money laundering and self-money laundering, the integrity of the free market from any form of pollution originating from the use of assets of illicit origin.

This statement is revolutionary in scope. Until now, part of the jurisprudence held that, to constitute the crime under art. 648-ter c.p., it was indispensable for the act of re-employment to be aimed at concealing or masking the illicit origin of the assets. The Court of Cassation, with this ruling, has overcome this interpretation, establishing that dissimulative intent is not an essential requirement. This means that even mere "employment" of assets of illicit origin, without any attempt at concealment, is sufficient to constitute the crime. The rationale behind this orientation lies in the primary function of Article 648-ter c.p., which is to protect the "free market" from any form of "pollution" arising from the use of illicit capital or assets. Therefore, it is not only about preventing concealment but also about ensuring that the legal economy is not distorted by the introduction of resources originating from criminal activities.

Crucial Differences with Money Laundering and Self-Money Laundering

Ruling No. 24273/2025 emphasizes the "residual" nature of the offense under art. 648-ter c.p. compared to the crimes of money laundering (art. 648-bis c.p.) and self-money laundering (art. 648-ter.1 c.p.). To fully understand the scope of this distinction, it is useful to analyze the peculiarities of each provision:

• Money Laundering (art. 648-bis c.p.): This crime is constituted when a person, who is not the perpetrator of the predicate offense, substitutes or transfers money, goods, or other assets originating from a non-negligent offense, or carries out other operations concerning them, in a manner that obstructs the identification of their criminal origin. Here, dissimulative intent is an essential constituent element.
• Self-Money Laundering (art. 648-ter.1 c.p.): Introduced more recently, this punishes those who, having committed or contributed to committing the non-negligent offense from which the money, goods, or assets originate, employ, substitute, transfer, or carry out other operations in a manner that concretely obstructs the identification of the criminal origin. In this case too, dissimulation is a fundamental requirement, albeit with the specificity that the perpetrator of the predicate offense is the same one who launders.
• Employment of Assets of Illicit Origin (art. 648-ter c.p.): As clarified by the ruling, this is constituted when a person employs money, goods, or assets originating from a non-negligent offense in economic or financial activities. The Cassation has established that dissimulative intent is not necessary. This offense intervenes when the conduct does not reach the threshold of dissimulation required for money laundering or self-money laundering, but is limited to the mere "employment" of illicit assets, with the primary objective of protecting market fairness.

In summary, while money laundering and self-money laundering aim to penalize the concealment of illicit origin, Article 648-ter c.p. focuses on preventing assets of criminal origin from entering and altering the legal economic system, regardless of a specific intent to "hide" their origin.

Practical Implications and Market Protection

This extensive interpretation of art. 648-ter c.p. has significant practical implications. For economic and financial operators, it increases responsibility and the need for greater diligence in verifying the origin of capital and assets with which they interact. The ruling sends a clear message: even a simple investment or use of illicit funds, without sophisticated concealment operations, can constitute a serious crime. For law enforcement and the judiciary, the ruling simplifies the ascertainment of the crime, removing a significant evidentiary obstacle related to proving dissimulative intent. The ultimate goal is to strengthen the transparency and integrity of the economic system, effectively combating the infiltration of organized and common crime.

Conclusions: A Step Forward in the Fight Against Economic Crime

Ruling No. 24273/2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a significant evolution in Italian jurisprudence regarding property crimes. By emphasizing the irrelevance of dissimulative intent for the constitution of art. 648-ter c.p., the Court reiterates the importance of protecting the free market as a primary legal interest. This decision not only clarifies the boundaries between different offenses concerning illicit proceeds but also strengthens the tools available to the State to combat the pollution of the economy by criminal activities. It is a strong and clear signal to anyone who thinks they can employ assets of illicit origin with impunity, contributing to a healthier and more transparent legal and economic system.