Commentary on Judgment Cass. Pen. no. 10218 of 2024: Money Laundering and Confiscation of Proceeds

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation, Section II, no. 10218 of 2024, significantly addresses the issues related to the crime of money laundering, particularly concerning the confiscation of profits derived from such illicit activity. The Court annulled the order of the Court of Bari, which had granted the review request of a suspect for the crime of money laundering, A.A., arguing that confiscation by equivalent value must be limited to the actual financial gain obtained by the money launderer.

The distinction between profit and proceeds

A central aspect of the judgment is the distinction between profit and proceeds of the crime. The Court reiterated that confiscation by equivalent value can only be applied in relation to the value of the actual financial gain obtained by the money launderer, and not on the entire sum derived from illicit transactions. This principle is in line with previous judicial trends, as highlighted in the judgments cited in the ruling.

Confiscation by equivalent value must be limited to the actual financial gain obtained by the money launderer and not to the entire amount derived from the transactions carried out by the perpetrator of the predicate offense.

Legal implications of the judgment

• Clarification of the concept of profit: the Court emphasized that profit must be interpreted restrictively, limited to the actual economic gain obtained by the accused.
• Recognition of the need for adequate evidentiary assessment: the Court of Bari had found an evidentiary deficit regarding the financial gain actually obtained by the suspect.
• Consistency with European regulations: the Court recalled the need to interpret national law in accordance with the principles of supranational regulations, such as the Council of Europe Convention on money laundering.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 10218 of 2024 represents an important step forward in understanding the crime of money laundering and its legal consequences. It clarifies not only the limits of confiscation by equivalent value but also the need for a rigorous application of criminal law in relation to illicit profits. The Court, with its intervention, invites reflection on how legal provisions should be applied fairly and justly, respecting the rights of suspects and the objectives of crime prevention and repression.