Registering an asset in someone else's name does not automatically constitute a crime. The problem arises when the registration is merely apparent and serves to conceal who actually retains the economic ownership or control of the asset. In this situation you might wonder whether a formal transfer is enough, whether the straw man is also facing proceedings, and what elements can lead to the seizure of money, real estate, corporate shares or businesses.
I will explain when the offence of fraudulent transfer of valuables under Article 512-bis of the criminal code applies, what purposes the prosecution must prove, and why the lawful origin of the asset does not always exclude the offence. We will also examine what distinguishes a real transfer from a fictitious one, how the third-party registered owner can react, and what aspects I consider decisive when setting up a defence.
When the Registration of an Asset Becomes Legally Relevant
The offence requires a fictitious attribution. This means that money, assets or other utilities formally appear to belong to or be available to one person, while another subject essentially maintains control over them. The rule therefore does not concern only the ownership reported in a contract or a registry: it also includes actual availability, meaning the concrete power to decide how to use the asset and derive an advantage from it.
Article 512-bis punishes the act with imprisonment from two to six years, unless the conduct constitutes a more serious offence. The current text contemplates both the evasion of preventive asset measures or provisions on contraband, and the facilitation of the crimes of receiving stolen goods, money laundering and use of money, assets or utilities of illicit origin. Since 2024, a specific hypothesis relating to anti-mafia documentation and participation in bidding or concession procedures is also provided for, as shown in the text of Article 512-bis published in the Official Gazette.
A simulated sale in civil law terms is not necessary. The offence is unrestricted in form: it can be carried out through a sale, a donation, the registration of an account, the assignment of shares, the appointment of a merely apparent director or a sequence of operations. What matters is the substantial result, namely the distance knowingly created between the visible holder and the person who continues to dispose of the value.
An authentic transfer instead remains outside the scope of the rule, even if it takes place between relatives or people bound by relations of trust. If the recipient of the asset actually pays the price, assumes the economic risks, makes the decisions and enjoys it autonomously, these elements can demonstrate that no fictitious screen exists. The mere form of the act is not enough either to accuse or to defend: it must be compared with what happens before and after the operation.
The Illicit Purpose Distinguishes the Offence from a Lawful Agreement
Fictitiousness alone does not complete the offence. For the main hypothesis under Article 512-bis, specific intent is required, meaning the will to carry out the apparent attribution pursuing one of the purposes indicated by the law. The prosecution must therefore link the operation to the intent to evade certain asset or customs provisions, or to facilitate receiving stolen goods, money laundering or the use of illicit values.
In the evasion of preventive measures, the objective is to prevent an asset from appearing available to the subject exposed to a possible asset intervention. The asset does not necessarily have to come from a crime. The Court of Cassation reiterated in January 2026 that this form of fraudulent transfer can also concern assets of lawful origin, because the rule counters the concealment of their actual availability: the principle is reported in the criminal review of the Court of Cassation of January 2026.
If, for example, a property purchased with legitimate income is attributed only formally to a third party to shield it from a possible asset measure, the lawfulness of the money used does not solve the problem. The response changes instead when the transfer is effective and the evasive purpose does not emerge: an act may be suspicious due to timing or personal relationships, but the suspicion must find confirmation in concrete facts.
In the different hypothesis aimed at facilitating receiving, laundering or use, the origin of the value and the relationship between the registration and subsequent use assume relevance. Furthermore, the clause that preserves the more serious offence requires distinguishing autonomous fraudulent intestacy from conduct that merely constitutes a segment of more articulated money laundering. The correct legal qualification affects the charge, the penalties and the attackable assets.
Who Is Liable: Hidden Owner, Straw Man and Other Participants
The first possible responsible party is the person who creates the screen. This is the subject who, while retaining interest and substantial control, attributes the ownership or apparent availability of the asset to others to achieve the prohibited purpose. Their role may emerge from issued orders, management of accounts, exclusive use of the asset, relations with suppliers, collection of revenues or the assumption of corporate decisions.
The straw man can also concur in the offence. However, it is not enough for their name to appear on the document: a conscious and voluntary participation is required. According to the Court of Cassation, the fictitious holder does not necessarily have to pursue the same specific purpose of the hidden owner on their own, but must be aware of the other party's illicit purpose and lend themselves to the realization of the operation. This criterion is illustrated in the Cassation criminal review of April 2024.
Kinship does not automatically prove the criminal agreement. A transfer in favor of a spouse, a child or a cohabitant may require particular attention, but further elements capable of showing the evasive nature and the awareness of the people involved must be evaluated in the criminal trial. The Court of Cassation underlined the necessity of this verification in the criminal review of October 2023.
A person who is neither the hidden owner nor the straw man can also be held liable if they provide a conscious contribution to the registration. This is the case, given the necessary prerequisites, of the de facto director acting on behalf of the substantial holder based on a previous agreement. Conversely, a neutral professional or executive activity does not become complicity just because it materially made an act possible: causal contribution and awareness must be proven.
Why Assets, Shares and Businesses Can Be Seized
Preventive seizure can intervene before the judgment. Article 321 of the criminal procedure code allows assets to be encumbered when their free availability can aggravate or prolong the consequences of the offence, facilitate other illicit acts or when the seizure is aimed at future confiscation. It is a real precautionary measure: it affects property, but does not equate to a conviction.
In the proceedings for fraudulent transfer, the encumbrance can concern precisely the values deemed fictitiously attributed: sums in accounts, real estate, corporate shareholdings, business assets or the enterprise used as a screen. The extension cannot be justified with generic formulas. The provision must indicate the link between the alleged offence, the substantial availability attributed to the suspect and the reason why each asset is subject to seizure.
There is also the risk of expanded confiscation. Article 240-bis of the criminal code includes the crime provided for by Article 512-bis. In the event of conviction or plea bargaining, under the conditions established by the rule, assets in the even indirect availability of the convicted person, disproportionate to income or economic activity and whose origin is not justified, can be confiscated. The reference to the fraudulent transfer can be found in the text of Article 240-bis reported on Normattiva.
This confiscation does not coincide with proving the fictitiousness of the single transfer. These are linked but distinct levels: on the one hand, the offence and its purpose are ascertained; on the other hand, availability, disproportion and lack of justification of the assets are verified. If the directly identified assets are not confiscable or traceable, the law contemplates, in the cases provided for, the ablation of other equivalent values in the offender's availability.
The third-party registered owner must also be able to challenge the encumbrance. They can argue that they are the actual owner, indicate the origin of the resources used, demonstrate the autonomy of decisions and challenge the confiscability of the asset. An effective defence is not limited to the formal contract: it reconstructs payments, financial flows, management, assumption of costs and destination of revenues.
What Elements Can Support a Criminal Defence
The first distinction concerns reality and appearance. If the transfer is effective, the facts must show that the new holder truly has disposal of the asset. Documented payment of the price is important, but not always decisive: the buyer's economic capacity, the origin of the sums, the assumption of expenses, the exercise of rights and the absence of hidden directives also count.
The second issue is purpose. A fiduciary registration, a family succession or a corporate reorganization may have lawful reasons, but their label is not enough. Chronology can change the meaning of the operation: knowledge of proceedings or checks, previous economic relationships, communications between participants and the methods by which the apparent holder uses the asset assume relevance.
For the straw man, the defence can focus on the lack of awareness. Being formally registered does not prove knowledge of the other person's personal situation or the pursued purpose. However, the explanation must confront any anomalies: absence of economic means, total powers of attorney, immediate return of proceeds, signatures affixed without participating in decisions or exclusive availability left to the previous holder.
Seizure requires specific challenges. It is necessary to distinguish the assets subject to the alleged fictitious attribution from those truly belonging to the third party, verify the precautionary title used and check whether the provision explains the link with the offence. The request for review has short procedural times: when the encumbrance is executed, it is therefore important to immediately examine the decree and the date from which applicable terms run.
Finally, the relationship with money laundering, self-laundering or other crimes is not merely formal. The Court of Cassation has clarified that money laundering can absorb the fraudulent transfer when the latter represents a passage of the broader laundering conduct. Reconstructing the concrete function of each operation therefore serves both to contest the fact and to avoid improper duplications of charges.
Enterprises, Biddings and Corporate Liability
Not every dummy director integrates the new corporate hypothesis. The second paragraph of Article 512-bis concerns the fictitious attribution of enterprises, shares, stocks or corporate positions carried out to evade the discipline of anti-mafia documentation, when the entrepreneur or the company participates in award procedures or the execution of biddings or concessions. Both the public contractual context indicated by the rule and the specific evasive purpose are therefore needed.
The fraudulent transfer of values is also among the crimes that can determine the administrative liability of the entity pursuant to Legislative Decree 231 of 2001. Article 25-octies.1 provides for this hypothesis a pecuniary sanction from 250 to 600 shares and contemplates the applicability of disqualifying sanctions: the amendment is reported in legislative decree no. 105 of 2023 on Normattiva.
The position of the company remains distinct from that of individuals. The role of the offender, the interest or advantage of the entity and the effective internal organization must be verified. A truly autonomous company cannot be treated as a screen just because a suspect owns shares in it or exercises a function there; likewise, the corporate shell does not protect an activity entirely directed by the hidden owner.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is registering an asset to a family member a crime?
No, not automatically. The crime requires the registration to be fictitious and pursue one of the purposes provided for by Article 512-bis. Kinship, cohabitation and temporal proximity to an investigation can be evaluation elements, but further facts showing who truly controls the asset and what purpose the operation had are necessary.
Must the asset come from criminal activity?
Not always. When the fictitious attribution aims to evade patrimonial preventive measures, the crime can also concern an asset purchased lawfully. If the prosecution instead contests the purpose of facilitating receiving, laundering or use, the origin and destination of the values assume a different role and must be reconstructed.
Does the straw man also risk a conviction?
Yes, if they participate consciously. It is not enough that the asset or company is registered in their name. It must emerge that they knew the fictitious nature of the operation and the illicit purpose pursued by the hidden owner, consciously lending their own contribution. Deception suffered or ignorance of the purpose can therefore be decisive.
Does seizure mean the crime has already been ascertained?
No, seizure is a precautionary measure. It can be ordered during investigations to prevent further consequences or in view of possible confiscation. The decree must in any case motivate the hypothesis of the crime, the link with the assets and the prerequisites of the encumbrance. The suspect and interested third party can use the provided procedural remedies.
How can I prove the transfer was real?
The economic substance of the operation counts. Effective payment, origin of the sums, autonomy of the new holder, assumption of expenses and risks, management of the asset and collection of revenues are relevant. A regular contract is important, but loses strength if all decisions and advantages remain with the previous owner.
Can a company suffer consequences beyond seizure?
Yes, consequences for the entity can be added. Under the conditions of Legislative Decree 231 of 2001, fraudulent transfer can determine pecuniary and disqualifying sanctions. However, the role of the person who committed the act and the interest or advantage of the company must be ascertained, without confusing its position with that of the directors.
How to Face the Accusation Without Stopping at Appearances
The defence must reconstruct who had control and why the transfer took place. Formal act, money flows, concrete management and chronology must be read together, distinguishing the crime from the precautionary measure and possible confiscation. If you have received a seizure decree or an accusation of fictitious registration, you can contact me to promptly examine the position of the apparent holder, the subject indicated as the hidden owner or the company involved.