Commentary on Judgment No. 45586 of 2024: Breach of Seals and Liability of the Judicial Custodian

Judgment No. 45586 of November 14, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a matter of significant importance in criminal law: the liability of the judicial custodian in case of breach of seals. This ruling offers important clarification on the difference between breach of seals and failure to report, highlighting the specific responsibilities of the custodian in the context of property under seizure.

The Case Under Review

The case concerned the defendant C. L., the judicial custodian of property under seizure, accused of failing to promptly notify the judicial authority of the breach of seals by third parties. The Court ruled that such conduct constitutes the aggravated crime of breach of seals, as per Article 349, paragraph two, of the Criminal Code, excluding the hypothesis of failure to report provided for by Article 361.

Judicial custodian - Omission of timely notification of breach of seals perpetrated by third parties - Configurability of the crime in the aggravated form referred to in Article 349, paragraph two, of the Criminal Code - Crime of failure to report - Configurability - Exclusion - Reasons. The conduct of the judicial custodian of property under seizure to which seals have been affixed, who, disregarding their legal duty to prevent the event, fails to promptly notify the judicial authority of their breach by third parties, constitutes the aggravated crime of breach of seals due to the agent's subjective qualification as per Article 349, paragraph two, of the Criminal Code, and not the crime of failure to report provided for by Article 361 of the Criminal Code. There is an apparent conflict of norms between the indicated incriminatory provisions, to be resolved through the principle of specialty by addition, since, in both, the conduct is carried out by a public official and can consist of failure to report, but only in the specific circumstance of breach of seals can it be carried out exclusively by the custodian of the property.

Implications of the Judgment

The decision of the Court of Cassation emphasizes the importance of the role of the judicial custodian and their duty of vigilance. In fact, the breach of seals is not merely a matter of formal non-compliance but has serious legal and practical consequences. The custodian, as a public official, has the obligation to protect the property and to promptly inform the judicial authority in case of a breach. This judgment clarifies that the breach of seals is considered a more serious offense than failure to report, precisely because of the specificity of the conduct required of the custodian.

• Recognition of the liability of the judicial custodian.
• Clarification of the difference between breach of seals and failure to report.
• Relevance of the agent's subjective qualification in contesting crimes.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 45586 of 2024 represents an important step forward in defining the responsibilities of the judicial custodian. It recognizes the seriousness of the breach of seals and clarifies that, in case of failure to report, a different liability regime applies. This decision not only strengthens the role of the custodian but also provides clear guidelines for future similar cases, promoting greater attention and responsibility in compliance with current criminal regulations.