Self-laundering may be charged when a person who has committed an offence uses or transfers the profit obtained in a manner concretely capable of concealing its origin. If you are facing an investigation in Milan, doubts often concern the boundary between a normal economic operation and criminally relevant conduct, the relationship with the alleged prior tax or corporate offence, and the possibility of reacting against the freezing of accounts and assets.
In this guide, I want to help you distinguish these levels. I explain which elements constitute the offence, why a simple transfer is not enough, when corporate liability may come into play, and what issues must be addressed immediately when facing a preventive seizure. Indeed, the defence requires separating facts that, in the initial charge, may appear as a single sequence.
When the Offence of Self-Laundering is Established
First and foremost, a prior offence is required, known as a predicate offence, committed by the same person to whom the self-laundering is attributed or with their complicity. The profit may consist of money, goods, or other utilities. Without an origin traceable to a specific criminal offence, it is not enough for the operation to be unusual, fiscally irregular, or difficult to reconstruct.
Article 648-ter.1 of the Criminal Code punishes anyone who uses, replaces, or transfers such utilities in economic, financial, entrepreneurial, or speculative activities, concretely obstructing the identification of their origin. The discipline was amended by Legislative Decree No. 195 of 8 November 2021, available in the institutional text of the amendments to the criminal code.
The obstruction must be concrete. It is not sufficient to state that money has moved from one account to another: it is necessary to understand whether methods, reasons, subjects involved, and the structure of the operation effectively make it more difficult to link the utility to the predicate offence. Apparent headings, passages lacking a real economic rationale, concatenated operations, or documents representing a relationship different from the actual one may, for example, assume significance.
The penalty provided for the main hypothesis is imprisonment from two to eight years, in addition to a fine. A different framework is provided for certain minor offences from which the utilities derive, a reduction when the predicate offence has a maximum penalty of less than five years, and an increase if the facts are committed in the exercise of a banking, financial, or professional activity. The correct sentencing framework therefore also depends on the exact qualification of the prior offence.
Personal Use and Economic Activity Are Not the Same Thing
Mere personal use is not punishable within the limits indicated by Article 648-ter.1 itself. However, this exclusion does not protect a disguised economic operation just because the final benefit is personal. If the money is first subjected to transfers or uses that concretely obstruct, subsequent private spending does not automatically cancel the previous conduct.
The decisive point is therefore the destination and, together, the way in which the utility is moved. The direct purchase of a good intended for personal enjoyment raises different issues from the injection of money into a company, investment through interposed subjects, or the construction of a contractual sequence that modifies its apparent origin.
Tax and Corporate Offences as Possible Predicates
A tax debt does not equal a tax offence. To support a charge of self-laundering, it is first necessary to identify a concrete criminal hypothesis, with its subjective elements, any thresholds, and the relative profit. A failure to pay, an accounting error, or an assessment by the Revenue Agency do not alone prove the existence of the predicate offence.
When a tax crime is hypothesised, the prosecution may also consider the economic saving derived from unpaid tax as profit, provided that all the elements of the specific tax offence are met. The second question remains distinct: was that advantage subsequently used, replaced, or transferred with concretely obstructing methods? The two charges do not automatically overlap.
In corporate matters, intragroup payments, shareholder loans, distributions, acquisitions of shareholdings, and capital increases are not illicit simply because they involve large sums. What counts is the economic reality of the operation, the correspondence between documents and facts, the origin of the money, and the function of the passages. A generic justification may be an investigative element, but it does not replace the proof of the offence.
The role of each person must be separated. Anyone who participated in the predicate offence may be held liable for self-laundering if they also carry out the subsequent conduct provided for by Article 648-ter.1. Anyone who did not participate in the first offence, but knowingly intervenes in the movement, may find themselves in a different position, potentially attributable to other legal provisions. Therefore, it is not enough to attribute the same responsibility to all subjects simply because they signed or authorised a passage.
What the Prosecution Must Prove
Subsequent and autonomous conduct is required with respect to the offence from which the profit derives. Preserving the advantage obtained or materially receiving the sum does not coincide, by itself, with its self-laundering. The prosecution must describe a further use, replacement, or transfer and explain why that specific operation obstructs the identification of the origin.
Bank flows, dates, contracts, accounting records, invoices, and the effective execution of services assume significance. These data must not be read in isolation. A documented payment may be real or only apparent: the difference emerges by comparing the commercial relationship, the subject who benefits from the sum, and what happens to the money after crediting.
Intent is also necessary, meaning awareness and will of the contested conduct. The anomaly of an operation does not automatically prove that whoever arranged it knew the illicit origin of the utilities and wanted to obstruct their identification. The position of the director, shareholder, consultant, or delegate must be reconstructed through effective powers, available information, and the contribution concretely provided.
The defence is not exhausted by traceability. A visible bank transfer does not always exclude obstruction, just as the use of cash does not prove self-laundering by itself. It is necessary to understand whether the operation, evaluated as a whole, created a deceptive representation of the origin or destination of the profit.
The Position of the Company and Liability under Legislative Decree 231
The company can be involved autonomously with respect to natural persons. Article 25-octies of Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2001 includes self-laundering among the offences that can determine the liability of the entity, as stated in the text of Article 25-octies.
Entity liability does not arise automatically from the charge brought against a director or employee. The offence must have been committed in the interest or to the advantage of the company by a person occupying a significant position according to the decree. Furthermore, the adopted organisation, the distribution of powers, and the effective application of internal procedures must be considered.
Natural person and entity have distinct defences. The company may face pecuniary sanctions and, in the event of conviction, disqualifying sanctions not exceeding two years in duration. Assets, operational continuity, and relations with banks and counterparties may also be involved. For this reason, the defensive choices of the various subjects must be coordinated without presuming that their interests coincide.
Preventive Seizure, Profit, and Confiscation
Seizure can precede the trial and freeze money or other assets in view of future confiscation. For the crimes of money laundering, use, and self-laundering, Article 648-quater provides for the confiscation of the product or profit; when it is not possible to target such assets directly, confiscation of an equivalent value may be ordered. The provision is reported in the normative source on confiscation provided by Article 648-quater.
Direct confiscation concerns the asset identified as the product or profit of the crime. Equivalent confiscation instead affects other assets available to the offender, up to the established value. Distinguishing between the two forms is essential to verify the relationship between the contested sum, the seized asset, and the person who holds ownership or effective control over it.
The fact that an account is held in the name of a company or a family member does not resolve the issue by itself. If a substantial availability of the suspect or an interposed ownership emerges, the attachment can be supported by the prosecution; if instead the third party is genuinely unrelated and independently disposes of the asset, ownership, origin of the sums, and absence of connections with the offence assume central weight.
The amount must be correctly determined. In proceedings that also include tax offences, multiple seizure titles may overlap, but duplicating the attachment beyond the overall identified profit is not permitted. The Court of Cassation addressed the relationship between tax profit, plurality of competitors, and the overall limit of seizure in judgment no. 6287 of 2026.
Review proceedings have a short deadline. Article 324 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that the request must be filed within ten days from the execution of the measure or from the different date on which the interested party became aware of the seizure. The text is reproduced in the Official Gazette containing the text of Article 324. Review does not automatically suspend the attachment.
How to Formulate the Defence in Milan
The first step is to separate the charges: existence of the predicate offence, origin and amount of the profit, subsequent self-laundering conduct, intent, and position of each subject. Challenging only the final operation may not be enough if the origin of the sums remains undisputed; similarly, defending against the tax offence does not automatically clarify the meaning of subsequent transfers.
Facing a seizure ordered by a judicial office in Milan, review falls under the competence of the collegial court of the capital of the province where the office that issued the measure is located. The deadline runs from the concrete date of knowledge, according to the conditions provided by Article 324, and must not be confused with the timing of subsequent appeals.
Review and requests for revocation perform different functions. Review allows for the timely challenging of the decree ordering the seizure; revocation concerns the permanence of the prerequisites of the attachment and may become relevant when new elements emerge or the reason for the measure ceases. Letting the review deadline expire while relying solely on revocation may restrict the issues that can be addressed.
Procedural alternatives must also be considered, but only after defining the contested fact and the patrimonial consequences. A choice regarding the ritual, potential dialogue on the measure, or a separate strategy for the company has different effects. There is no abstractly correct solution: the decision depends on available evidence, the stage of the proceedings, and the interests that must be protected.
To prepare for the first consultation, the seizure decree, the execution report, any notified documents, an essential chronology of operations, and documents explaining the economic relationships involved are useful. Do not modify or retroactively integrate documentation: explanations must rest on authentic facts and acts, preserved in their original form.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is every transfer of money originating from a crime considered self-laundering?
No, the transfer alone is not enough. It must be inserted into an economic, financial, entrepreneurial, or speculative activity and be concretely capable of obstructing the identification of the illicit origin. Furthermore, a predicate offence attributable to the same subject and awareness of the carried-out conduct are required.
Does a tax offence automatically entail the charge of self-laundering?
No, these are distinct charges. First, the elements of the specific tax crime and the relative profit must be proven. Then, subsequent conduct of use, replacement, or transfer with concretely obstructing capacity must be identified. The simple use of liquidity remaining within the enterprise does not automatically produce the second offence.
Can a bank account held in the name of the company be seized?
Yes, but specific prerequisites are needed. It matters whether the money constitutes directly identifiable profit, whether the company is the real owner, and what relationship exists between the account and the suspect. For equivalent seizure, the effective availability of assets and the value limit indicated in the decree assume particular significance.
How much time do I have to request a review of the seizure?
The ordinary deadline is ten days from the execution of the measure or from the different date on which you became aware of the executed seizure, according to Article 324 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The start of the term must be precisely identified through reports and notifications; the request alone does not suspend the execution of the measure.
Is the company always liable if the director is investigated?
No, entity liability is not automatic. It is necessary to verify whether the offence was committed in the interest or to the advantage of the company, the position held by the author, and the conditions provided by Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2001. The company's defence remains distinct from that of the director, even when it arises from the same facts.
A Confrontation on the Charge
An investigation for self-laundering can simultaneously involve personal freedom, corporate activity, and assets. A timely reading of the files allows for distinguishing the predicate offence from subsequent operations and avoiding neglecting the deadlines related to seizure. If the proceedings concern the judicial offices of Milan, you can contact me to examine the charge and the concretely available defensive options.