Preventive Seizure and Extended Confiscation: Analysis of Judgment No. 30633 of 2024

Judgment No. 30633 of July 1, 2024, by the Court of Cassation represents an important milestone in understanding real precautionary measures, particularly preventive seizure aimed at extended confiscation under Article 240-bis of the Criminal Code. This ruling not only clarifies the requirements for congruence between illicit profits and the value of assets subject to seizure but also offers food for thought on how such measures should be applied fairly and justifiably.

The Legal Context of Preventive Seizure

Preventive seizure is a precautionary measure intended to ensure that assets can be confiscated in the event of a conviction for crimes that generate illicit profits. Article 240-bis of the Criminal Code stipulates that extended confiscation may be ordered in cases where assets are considered to originate from criminal activities, provided there is a reasonable congruence between illicit profits and the value of the confiscated assets.

Preventive seizure aimed at confiscation under Art. 240-bis, Criminal Code - Relationship between illicit profits and the value of assets subject to forfeiture - Congruence - Necessity - Case law. Regarding preventive seizure aimed at extended confiscation under Art. 240-bis of the Criminal Code, the latter is justified if, and only to the extent that, the criminal conduct attributed to the convicted person was a source of illicit profits, in a quantity reasonably congruent with the value of the assets intended for confiscation, the lawful origin of which the same person was unable to justify. (In application of this principle, the Court annulled with referral the order of the review court that had confirmed the preventive seizure of movable property, real estate, and company shares, in relation to the crime of receiving stolen goods of a moped attributed to the suspect).

Analysis of the Judgment and Its Effects

The Court annulled the order of the review court with referral, emphasizing the importance of demonstrating a correlation between illicit profits and the value of assets to be confiscated. This decision highlights how preventive seizure cannot be ordered arbitrarily but must be based on an accurate assessment of the assets and profits derived from illicit conduct. In particular, it was noted that, in the case examined, the crime of receiving stolen goods of a moped did not justify the seizure of assets with a value significantly higher than the illicit profit.

• Importance of congruence between illicit profits and confiscable assets.
• Need for an objective assessment of criminal conduct.
• Possibility of appealing precautionary measures in case of incongruence.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 30633 of 2024 represents an important clarification regarding preventive seizure and extended confiscation, emphasizing that the principle of congruence must always be respected. Legal professionals must pay attention to these principles to ensure that precautionary measures are justified and do not become instruments of injustice. With this decision, the Court reiterates the importance of ensuring a fair balance between the pursuit of justice and respect for the rights of the individuals involved.