Analysis of Judgment Cass. pen., Sec. II, no. 16369 of 2024: Asset Seizure and Self-Money Laundering

The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation, no. 16369 of 2024, offers an important opportunity for reflection on the discipline of preventive seizure in matters of self-money laundering. In particular, the Court addressed the issue of the existence of the fumus commissi delicti and the necessary conditions for the legitimacy of the seizure of movable and immovable property in relation to a defendant accused of self-money laundering.

The Case Under Examination

The appellant, A.A., opposed the decree of preventive seizure issued by the judge for preliminary investigations of the Court of Naples, arguing the absence of sufficient elements to configure the crime of self-money laundering. In particular, the defense contested that the payment operations carried out with proceeds from tax fraud offenses could not be considered dissimulative, believing that they did not hinder the identification of the illicit origin of the sums.

In the context of preventive seizure, the fumus of the crime of self-money laundering exists in the case of depositing money to extinguish debts, given that such conduct constitutes the substitution of the proceeds of the predicate offense.

The Court's Arguments

The Court rejected the grounds for appeal, highlighting how the Tribunal had provided a broad and detailed reasoning, capable of considering all the defense arguments. In particular, the Court emphasized that the conduct of self-money laundering does not necessarily require the existence of dissimulative activity, and the mere substitution of the proceeds of the predicate offense may be sufficient. This principle deviates from some restrictive interpretations that require a clear intent to conceal on the part of the defendant.

Implications of the Judgment

The Court's decision has important implications for jurisprudence in matters of self-money laundering and preventive seizure. In particular, it clarifies that:

• Preventive seizure can be ordered even in the absence of dissimulative activity, if there are elements demonstrating the substitution of the proceeds of the crime.
• A fumus commissi delicti is sufficient to legitimize the seizure, avoiding the need to prove the defendant's guilt.
• Payment operations of debts with illicit proceeds can constitute a crime of self-money laundering, even if the money used is traceable.

Conclusions

The judgment Cass. pen., Sec. II, no. 16369 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the understanding and application of the rules relating to self-money laundering. It clarifies that asset seizure should not be considered an exception, but can be a necessary measure to ensure the effectiveness of criminal proceedings against phenomena of tax fraud and money laundering. The Court, therefore, not only reaffirms already established principles but also offers an interpretation that may influence future decisions in criminal matters.