Confiscation of Profit and Proceeds in Money Laundering: The Court of Cassation's Interpretation in Ruling No. 22641/2025

In the realm of economic criminal law, combating money laundering, reinvestment, and self-laundering offenses is an absolute priority, both nationally and at the European level. The State's ability to seize illicitly accumulated assets is fundamental to dismantling criminal organizations and restoring legality. In this context, the recent ruling No. 22641 of 03/06/2025 by the Court of Cassation serves as a highly significant interpretative piece, clarifying crucial aspects related to asset confiscation.

Confiscation in Money Laundering: Distinction Between Profit and Proceeds

The Italian Penal Code, particularly Article 648-quater, provides effective tools for the confiscation of assets derived from illicit activities. However, the terminology "profit" and "proceeds" of a crime has often generated interpretative debates. Profit is the economic advantage directly derived from the crime, while proceeds are the tangible or intangible assets that result from the criminal action itself. The ruling in question, issued by the Second Criminal Section with President P. A. and Rapporteur P. I., addressed precisely this delicate distinction in relation to the offense of money laundering, clarifying the scope of the confiscation institution.

In matters of patrimonial security measures, a ruling that extends the confiscation of the proceeds of a money laundering offense, charged to multiple defendants, to the profit derived from it is not null and void, provided that the provisions of Article 648-quater of the Penal Code have been correctly invoked, and the "quantum" to be seized has been identified as the entire amount of sums laundered by the aforementioned individuals, given that the measure provided for by the indicated provision can indifferently target both the profit and the proceeds of money laundering, reinvestment, or self-laundering offenses.

This maxim is of fundamental importance. The Court of Cassation, in fact, has affirmed that a ruling is not vitiated by nullity if it extends confiscation to the "proceeds" of the money laundering offense, even if it formally refers to "profit." The essential condition is that Article 648-quater of the Penal Code has been correctly invoked and that the total amount of laundered sums has been precisely identified. This means that, for confiscation purposes, the law effectively equates the profit and the proceeds of money laundering, reinvestment, and self-laundering offenses. The objective is clear: to ensure that any patrimonial advantage derived from such criminal conduct can be seized from the offender, regardless of the precise legal label attached to the asset.

Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

The Supreme Court's decision is part of a complex regulatory and jurisprudential framework aimed at strengthening tools to combat economic crime. Article 648-quater of the Penal Code is the focal point of this ruling but is closely linked to other fundamental provisions of our legal system:

• Article 648-bis of the Penal Code: Money Laundering, which punishes anyone who substitutes or transfers money, assets, or other benefits originating from a non-negligent offense, or carries out other operations in relation to them, in a way that obstructs the identification of their criminal origin.
• Article 648-ter of the Penal Code: Use of Money, Assets, or Benefits of Illicit Origin, which penalizes anyone who uses money, assets, or other benefits originating from an offense in economic or financial activities.
• Article 648-ter.1 of the Penal Code: Self-Laundering, introduced to punish anyone who, having committed or contributed to committing a non-negligent offense, uses, substitutes, transfers, in economic, financial, entrepreneurial, or speculative activities, the money, assets, or other benefits originating from the commission of such offense.

The reference to these articles is essential for understanding the scope of confiscation. The Court of Cassation has also referred to previous maxims and decisions of the United Sections (such as No. 13783 of 2025), testifying to a consolidated interpretative path. Furthermore, European law, with its Directives (for example, Directive 2014/42/EU on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime and instrumentalities of crime), urges Member States to adopt effective regulations for the seizure of illicit assets, constantly influencing the evolution of our legislation and jurisprudence.

Practical Implications for Defense and Prosecution

Ruling No. 22641/2025 has significant practical implications. For the prosecution, it strengthens the possibility of obtaining asset confiscation, eliminating potential defense exceptions based on the strict distinction between profit and proceeds. The key remains the correct identification of the "quantum" to be confiscated, i.e., the entire amount of laundered sums. For the defense, however, the ruling emphasizes the importance of contesting not so much the qualification of the asset (profit or proceeds) but rather the actual illicit origin of the sums and the correct quantification of the amount to be seized. Therefore, a defense strategy that focuses on demonstrating the absence of a causal link between the crime and the asset or its lawful origin, as well as on the incorrect determination of the value to be confiscated, is crucial.

Conclusions: The Fight Against Money Laundering Strengthens

The Court of Cassation's ruling No. 22641/2025 represents a further step forward in the fight against financial crimes. By clarifying that confiscation, pursuant to Article 648-quater of the Penal Code, can indifferently target both the profit and the proceeds of money laundering, reinvestment, or self-laundering, the Supreme Court has provided a more robust interpretative tool for the action of justice. This decision consolidates the principle that crime should not pay, strengthening the effectiveness of patrimonial security measures and sending a clear signal to those who attempt to profit from illicit activities. For legal professionals and citizens alike, understanding these dynamics is essential for navigating a legal system increasingly focused on transparency and economic legality.