Self-money laundering and plurality of predicate offenses: Ruling no. 18847/2025 of the Court of Cassation

Criminal law, especially in the field of economic crimes, is constantly evolving to effectively combat new forms of criminality. The crime of self-money laundering, introduced into our legal system by Law no. 186/2014, is a crucial tool to prevent the concealment and reintroduction of illicit proceeds into the legal circuit. The recent ruling no. 18847, filed on May 20, 2025, by the Supreme Court of Cassation, offers an important interpretation of the application of this offense, particularly when there is a plurality of predicate offenses and a partial subjective identity between the perpetrators. This decision is fundamental for understanding criminal liability in complex contexts, strengthening the fight against those who attempt to "clean" the fruits of crime.

Understanding Self-Money Laundering (Art. 648-ter.1 c.p.)

Article 648-ter.1 of the Italian Penal Code punishes anyone who, having committed or contributed to committing a non-negligent felony, carries out operations aimed at hindering the identification of the criminal origin of money, goods, or other assets. The objective is to prevent the criminal from freely enjoying the proceeds of their illicit activity by reintroducing them into the legal economy. This is a crime that is added to the original one, reflecting the seriousness of behavior that perpetuates the effects of the first offense.

Ruling no. 18847/2025: New Boundaries of Liability

Ruling no. 18847/2025 of the Court of Cassation (President P. A., Rapporteur B. M.), issued in the case of the defendant L. E., addresses the delicate issue of self-money laundering in the presence of multiple predicate offenses and partial subjective identity between the perpetrators. The Court clarified that liability for self-money laundering does not require the perpetrator to have committed all the predicate offenses from which the illicit assets derive. This interpretation significantly extends the scope of the rule.

The perpetrator of even just one of multiple predicate offenses, who, aware of the criminal origin of the assets derived from the crime to which they contributed, carries out a subsequent typical conduct causally oriented to hinder the ascertainment of their origin, is liable for the crime of self-money laundering. (In its reasoning, the Court also affirmed that, in the presence of multiple predicate offenses, the configurability of the crime referred to in art. 648-ter.1 of the Penal Code does not require the physical identity between all the perpetrators of the aforementioned offenses and those who carry out the subsequent self-money laundering conduct).

This maxim is crucial. It establishes that it is sufficient to have contributed to only one of the predicate offenses, provided that one is aware of the illicit origin of the proceeds and acts to hinder their traceability. A perfect "physical identity" between all the perpetrators of the original offenses and those who then carry out the self-money laundering is not required. This means that even a subject with a minor role in the predicate offense, but who subsequently manages the illicit proceeds with the intent to conceal them, can be held liable for self-money laundering. This interpretation broadens the effectiveness of the rule, making it more difficult to evade justice through complex networks of complicity, in line with Article 110 of the Penal Code on complicity in a crime.

• Criteria for Self-Money Laundering According to the Ruling:
• Awareness: The perpetrator must know the illicit origin of the assets or money.
• Partial Contribution: It is sufficient to have participated in even just one predicate offense.
• Hindering Conduct: The action must be aimed at preventing the identification of the illicit origin.
• Subjective Identity: Total coincidence between the perpetrators of the predicate offense and those of self-money laundering is not required.

Conclusions: A Strong Signal Against Economic Crime

Ruling no. 18847/2025 of the Court of Cassation is an important pillar in the fight against self-money laundering. It reinforces the principle that justice pursues anyone who attempts to conceal the fruits of criminal activities, even in complex scenarios of complicity and plurality of offenses. The interpretation provided by the Supreme Court strengthens the tools available to the judiciary and law enforcement agencies, sending a clear message: the intent to hide illicit proceeds will find no escape in intricate criminal architectures. For society, this translates into greater protection of the legal economy and a signal of firmness against all forms of financial illegality.