A frozen company bank account in proceedings for tax offenses can halt payments, collections, and essential business relationships. At this point, the question is not only whether the seizure is lawful: it is necessary to understand which seizure was ordered, what amount it covers, against whom it was issued, and which remedy can be used without missing important deadlines.
I will explain how to distinguish the review proceedings from a subsequent request for revocation or reduction of the encumbrance, what impact a tax debt installment plan can have, and why the need to pay suppliers or employees, by itself, does not result in the unfreezing of the account. Above all, we will examine which facts truly change the outcome: the nature of the seizure, the amount of the contested profit, the company's position, and the development of the tax debt.
The decree indicates why the account was frozen
Not every seizure has the same function. An account may be encumbered to gather evidence useful for the investigation, or through a preventive seizure. In the second case, the measure may prevent an asset from aggravating or prolonging the consequences of the crime, or it may be ordered because the asset is subject to future confiscation. Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure distinguishes these prerequisites and also provides for revocation when the conditions applicable to the preventive seizure cease to exist. Text of Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In tax offenses, future confiscation often matters. Article 12-bis of Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000 links conviction or plea bargaining for the offenses provided for in the decree to the confiscation of the price or profit of the crime and, when this is not possible, to confiscation by equivalent value. Preventive seizure can therefore anticipate the financial effects that the judge might order at the end of the trial; however, it does not constitute an anticipated conviction. Amendments to Article 12-bis of Legislative Decree No. 74/2000.
The title of the measure is not enough. To understand whether there is concrete room for release from seizure, one must read the operative part and the reasoning: the alleged crime, the function of the encumbrance, the maximum sum affected, the accounts involved, and the link between the blocked funds and the measure must emerge. A decree that affects all of the company's banking relationships can have much broader consequences than an encumbrance limited to a specific amount.
The company's account does not automatically coincide with personal assets
The distinction between the company and the suspect remains decisive. The company has its own assets, distinct from those of the director, the shareholder, or the person under investigation. However, in tax offenses committed in the interest of the entity, the money present in company accounts can become subject to seizure if it is classified as the profit of the crime or if the measure identifies a different legal basis provided for by law.
The economic limit of the encumbrance must be checked with precision. It is not sufficient to observe that the account contains funds of lawful origin or funds received after the contested event: the legal classification of the money, the type of confiscation proposed, and the contested tax advantage significantly affect the situation. However, it is essential that the total amount encumbered does not exceed the contested profit and that there is no duplication of seizure among multiple subjects or assets.
Multiple suspects do not allow for duplications. In a ruling filed on February 17, 2026, the Court of Cassation recalled that, in tax offenses committed in conspiracy in the interest of a legal entity, seizure by equivalent value can target one or more offenders up to the limit of the total profit, without duplicating the encumbrance. This principle does not automatically release the company account, but requires careful verification of how much has already been seized from other parties. Court of Cassation, judgment no. 6287 of 2026.
Review proceedings are the immediate remedy against the seizure decree
Review proceedings have a short deadline. Against the preventive seizure decree issued by the judge, the defendant, defense counsel, the person whose belongings were seized, and anyone who would be entitled to their restitution may request a review, including on the merits. The request must be submitted within ten days of the execution of the measure or from the different date on which the interested party became aware of the seizure.
The request does not unfreeze the account immediately. Review proceedings do not suspend the execution of the seizure: the bank therefore maintains the freeze until a different measure intervenes. The court of the chief town of the province where the office that issued the decree is located decides in a collegiate composition within ten days of receiving the files. The law allows grounds to be formulated and added before the discussion. Articles 322, 322-bis, 324, and 325 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Review proceedings serve to contest the original decree. It can concern the absence of the prerequisites for the measure, lack of reasoning, the calculation of the profit, the excess of the seized amount, or the non-referability of the sums to the person or entity subject to the encumbrance. It is not a simple request for leniency regarding business activity: each objection must be linked to what the decree states and to the available evidence.
The choice of remedy is not interchangeable. An appeal pursuant to Article 322-bis concerns, outside of review cases, orders regarding preventive seizure and the public prosecutor's decree revoking the seizure. The appeal to the Court of Cassation against review or appeal orders is limited to violations of the law. For this reason, the content of the document received, and not just the word "seizure," determines the applicable path.
Revocation or reduction may become relevant after the decree
A subsequent event can change the measure. After the seizure, payments already made, a documented reduction in the tax debt, the acceptance of an installment plan, or elements showing that the encumbered value exceeds the contested profit may emerge. These facts do not automatically replace review proceedings if the deadline is still open, but they may make it necessary to request that the encumbrance be reassessed in its current extent.
Release from seizure can also be partial. Article 324, paragraph 7, of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly provides that, in review proceedings, revocation may be partial. In practice, this possibility is useful when the problem does not concern the entire seizure, but a sum of money exceeding the limit indicated in the decree, an overlap with other assets already seized, or sums that do not fall within the actual scope of the measure.
Business continuity is a fact to be proven, not an automatic exemption. Salaries, contributions, essential suppliers, and current taxes describe the practical consequences of the freeze, but they do not alone eliminate the purpose of the seizure. They may become relevant if they help to precisely delimit the portion of liquidity not necessary for the measure, or if they are linked to a subsequent event that reduces the amount to be preserved.
Tax debt installment plan: what changes for the seizure
Installment plans now have express relevance. The 2024 reform amended Article 12-bis, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000. For seizure aimed at confiscation, the rule establishes that the measure shall not be ordered if the tax debt is being extinguished through an installment plan, even after conciliation procedures or settlement with adherence in the administrative phase.
Protection is not absolute. The same provision leaves room for seizure when there is a concrete danger of dissipation of the asset guarantee, deducible from the offender's income, asset, or financial conditions and taking into account the severity of the crime. Therefore, simply declaring an intention to pay is not enough: the relevant data is the actual status of the debt, the payment plan, and any reason indicated in the decree for deeming the encumbrance necessary. Rules introduced by Legislative Decree No. 87 of 2024.
An installment plan does not by itself unfreeze an already encumbered account. The rule primarily governs the moment when the seizure is ordered. If the decree already exists, the installment plan must be brought before the judicial authority as a concrete and documented element, explaining why it affects the necessity or extent of the encumbrance. The outcome also depends on the precise object of the seizure and the reasons that justified its adoption.
Paying reduces the risk of asset overlaps. Payment receipts, the certification of the remaining debt, and the regular progress of installments help define what value is still in dispute. One should not confuse the total tax debt with the amount of the criminally contested profit: they may coincide only in part and must be compared in light of the decree and the updated tax position.
What elements make a request genuinely verifiable
Orderly data related to the encumbrance are needed. The starting point is the complete decree with proof of the date of execution or knowledge, followed by bank statements for the period in question, an indication of any other assets seized, and updated tax documentation. If an installment plan exists, the admission order, the plan, receipts of paid installments, and the certified remaining amount become relevant.
Every sum requested must be linked to a legal reason. Saying that the company needs liquidity is not enough. It is more useful to clarify whether the entire seizure is being contested, whether the value exceeds the indicated profit, whether part of the debt has been paid, or whether the account belongs to a party unrelated to the contested conduct. This distinction prevents the submission of a generic application and makes the requested effect understandable.
It is not advisable to wait for the bank's response. The bank executes the order received from the judicial authority and, as a rule, cannot transform it into authorization to use the account for operational needs. If the measure is challengeable, the deadline runs from execution or knowledge in the ways provided by law; the company's cash flow problems do not suspend that deadline.
Frequently asked questions
Can I request review proceedings if the account is in the company's name and the suspect is the director?
Yes, the company can have an independent position. Article 322 also allows review proceedings for the person whose belongings were seized and for anyone who would be entitled to restitution. However, it is necessary to clarify the account ownership, the reason why the decree targets the entity, and the relationship between the blocked sums and the contested profit.
Is the deadline for review proceedings always ten days?
The ordinary deadline is ten days. Article 324 runs it from the date of execution of the seizure or from the different date on which the interested party became aware of the encumbrance. The exact date must be carefully ascertained, because a late request may be declared inadmissible.
Does the review request immediately reactivate the bank account?
No, review proceedings do not suspend the seizure. The bank normally continues to execute the measure until the judicial authority orders cancellation, modification, or even partial revocation. For this reason, the remedy must be prepared by focusing on the prerequisites and the amount of the measure.
Is an installment plan with the Revenue Agency enough to obtain release from seizure?
It is not automatically enough. An ongoing installment plan assumes specific relevance in Article 12-bis for seizure aimed at confiscation, but a distinction must be made between a measure to be adopted and a measure already executed. Furthermore, the regularity of the plan, the remaining debt, and any danger of asset dissipation indicated by the authority count.
Can I at least obtain the unfreezing of a portion of the sums?
Partial release from seizure is possible. The law contemplates this within the review proceedings. It becomes a concrete request when there is a surplus compared to the contested profit, an overlap with other seizures, or a documented subsequent event that reduces the portion still justified by the measure.
Acting without confusing the tax problem with the criminal one
The frozen account requires two coordinated interpretations. The tax debt, the payment plan, and the company's needs affect the situation, but they do not replace the control over the criminal decree, deadlines, and the limit of the seizure. If you have received such a measure, you can contact me to evaluate the remedy compatible with the act and the documents actually available.