Commentary on Judgment No. 33116 of 2024: Precautionary Seizure and Proceeds of Crime

Judgment No. 33116 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, has raised important issues regarding real precautionary measures, particularly precautionary seizure. It clarifies that an independent assessment of the proceeds of the crime is not necessary for the validity of the precautionary seizure order, a decision that warrants in-depth analysis.

Context of the Judgment

In this judgment, the defendant, E. B., was involved in criminal proceedings requiring the application of precautionary measures. The Court established that the precautionary seizure order is not void even if it is not accompanied by an independent assessment of the proceeds of the crime. This aspect is crucial, as it relates to how precautionary measures should be managed in accordance with the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

Determination of the proceeds of the crime - Lack of independent assessment - Nullity - Exclusion - Reasons. In the context of real precautionary measures, a precautionary seizure order for confiscation is not void if it is not accompanied by an independent assessment by the judge regarding the determination of the proceeds of the crime, as this is only required, by virtue of the reference to Article 309, paragraph 9, of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by Article 324, paragraph 7, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with regard to the conditions for applying the confiscatory measure, consisting of the "fumus commissi delicti" and the "periculum in mora".

Implications of the Decision

The Court's decision is based on the principle that the assessment of the proceeds of the crime is a secondary aspect compared to the fundamental requirements for applying precautionary measures, which are the "fumus commissi delicti" (suspicion of a crime) and the "periculum in mora" (danger of evidence tampering or flight of the defendant). This interpretation allows for greater agility in seizure procedures, preventing the lack of an independent assessment from compromising the legitimacy of the precautionary measure.

• Fumus commissi delicti: Suspicion of a crime having been committed.
• Periculum in mora: Risk of evidence tampering or flight.
• Proceeds of the crime: No need for independent assessment for seizure purposes.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 33116 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in the management of precautionary measures within our legal system. It clarifies that, in certain contexts, the assessment of the proceeds of the crime is not essential for the validity of the precautionary seizure order. This decision could simplify and accelerate procedures related to precautionary measures, thereby responding to the needs for justice and efficiency of the criminal justice system.