Preventive Measures and Social Dangerousness: The Court of Cassation (Judgment no. 31914/2025) on Proceeds from Tax Crimes

In the Italian legal landscape, preventive measures represent a fundamental tool for combating crime, aiming not only to sanction illicit behaviors already committed but also to prevent the commission of new offenses. At the heart of this system lies the concept of "social dangerousness," a complex assessment that judges are called upon to make to identify individuals who, due to their lifestyle or activities, might re-offend. The recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, Sixth Criminal Section, with judgment no. 31914 of May 6, 2025 (filed on September 25, 2025), has provided an important clarification on how "generic dangerousness" should be interpreted when dealing with proceeds from tax crimes.

The Core of the Judgment: The Notion of Generic Dangerousness

The judgment in question focuses on Article 1, paragraph 1, letter b), of Legislative Decree of September 6, 2011, no. 159 (Code of Anti-Mafia Laws and Preventive Measures), which identifies as socially dangerous those who "habitually live, even in part, on the proceeds of criminal activities." This article is crucial because it allows the preventive judge to intervene not only against organized crime but also against individuals who, while not affiliated with mafia clans, derive their sustenance from illicit activities.

The specific case concerned an individual, P. Z., against whom the Court of Appeal of Milan had rejected a preventive measure. The Court of Cassation, presided over by E. A. and with F. D'A. as rapporteur, addressed the issue of the relevance of proceeds from tax crimes for establishing such dangerousness. Here is the summary of the judgment:

For the purpose of assessing generic dangerousness under Article 1, paragraph 1, letter b), of Legislative Decree of September 6, 2011, no. 159, the preventive judge must verify whether the subject habitually lives, even in part, on the proceeds of criminal activities, referring to the overall lifestyle of the subject and their family unit, and it is not necessary for the illicit profits to have been indispensable for meeting basic needs. (Case in which the subject had reinvested proceeds from repeated tax crimes in real estate purchases, thus ensuring for themselves and their family unit a condition of affluence that legitimate income sources would not have allowed).

This summary is of fundamental importance. It clarifies that to establish generic dangerousness, it is not necessary for illicit proceeds to have been used to meet basic needs (food, housing, clothing). It is sufficient that such profits have contributed, even in part, to sustaining an affluent "overall lifestyle" for the subject and their family unit, a lifestyle that legitimate sources alone would not have permitted. The concrete case mentioned in the judgment, where the subject had reinvested proceeds from repeated tax crimes in real estate, highlights how the accumulation of illicit wealth, even if not aimed at mere survival, is fully relevant for social dangerousness.

Extension to Tax Crimes and Impact on Lifestyle

The ruling by the Court of Cassation is particularly significant for its explicit mention of "tax crimes" as a source of illicit proceeds relevant for preventive measures. Traditionally, in the common imagination, tax crimes are often perceived as less serious than other forms of criminality. However, the Court emphasizes how systematic tax evasion and the accumulation of substantial capital derived from such conduct can significantly alter an individual's lifestyle, establishing that "affluence" not justified by legitimate sources.

The preventive judge, as reiterated by the judgment, must therefore conduct a thorough and holistic analysis of the lifestyle of the subject and their family unit. This implies evaluating various elements, including:

• Luxury real estate or movable property purchases.
• Financial or business investments.
• Availability of valuable assets (cars, boats, jewelry).
• Expenses for travel, leisure, or other discretionary consumption.
• The discrepancy between declared income sources and the ostentatious lifestyle.

This expansive interpretation strengthens the effectiveness of preventive measures, allowing for action not only against mafia-type criminals but also against those who, through economic and financial crimes, accumulate illicit wealth, distorting market rules and civil coexistence. The ability to reinvest such proceeds, as in the case of P. Z., demonstrates a clear propensity to perpetuate a lifestyle based on illegality.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 31914/2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important step in the fight against economic crime and in the application of preventive measures. By reiterating that generic social dangerousness can be established even when illicit proceeds from tax crimes are used to ensure affluence, and not just to meet basic needs, the Court sends a clear message: the legal system is determined to intercept all forms of illegal enrichment that alter an individual's lifestyle. This approach ensures greater protection for the community and reaffirms the principle that no illicit wealth, regardless of its origin, can be tolerated or ignored, especially when it translates into a lifestyle sustained by the violation of the law.