Cassazione penale n. 12443/2025: how to calculate the confiscatable profit in usury offences

The VI Section of the Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 12443 of March 11, 2025 (filed March 31, 2025), annulled without referral the decision of the Court of Appeal of Milan of May 16, 2024, intervening on a crucial issue: the exact quantification of the confiscatable profit in usury proceedings. The case concerned D. D. P., accused of applying above-threshold interest rates. The jurisprudential landmark is part of a trend already initiated with Cass. no. 16045/2023, but it further consolidates the boundaries between lent capital and illicit gain.

The core of the decision

The Court reiterated that the confiscation provided for by the sixth paragraph of art. 644 of the Italian Civil Code is mandatory and can occur "also by equivalent value", i.e., by seizing assets of corresponding value if direct seizure of the profit is not possible. The controversial point was to define what should be understood as profit: the entire flow of money received by the perpetrator or only its illicit component?

In matters of usury, the profit, which can be confiscated also by equivalent value pursuant to art. 644, sixth paragraph, of the Italian Criminal Code, is identified as the economic advantage directly and immediately causally derived from the crime, and therefore must be determined by deducting the amount received as a loan from the sum paid by the victim.

In other words, the Cassation clarifies that the capital originally handed over to the borrower cannot be subject to confiscation: the confiscation only affects the "extra" part, i.e., interest and charges that exceed the legal threshold. This avoids duplication with the restitution owed to the victim and aligns the confiscation measure with the function of special prevention and restoration of legality.

Determination of confiscatable profit

On an operational level, the ruling provides a streamlined and transparent calculation method, aligning with EU Directive 2014/42 on the confiscation of proceeds of crime, which requires a direct causal link between the crime and the financial advantage.

• Identify the total sum paid by the borrower to the usurer (installments, interest, and expenses).
• Deduct the capital actually lent.
• The result constitutes the confiscatable profit, subject to direct confiscation or confiscation by equivalent value from other assets.

The Court also refers, in support, to the principles of proportionality established by the ECtHR (see G.I.E.M. S.r.l. v. Italy, Grand Chamber, 2018), according to which the financial measure must not exceed the amount of the illicit gain.

Practical implications for operators

For the Public Prosecutor, the verdict requires the request for preventive seizure to be articulated by precisely indicating the deductive criterion. For the defense, on the other hand, the possibility opens up to challenge seizures based on gross amounts, not cleared of the capital, while the civil party can easily quantify the damage in civil proceedings, without fearing overlaps with confiscation.

Finally, the provision strengthens the protection of victims: the restitution of capital remains a priority, and confiscation only affects unjustified enrichment, discouraging usurious practices without depressing the legitimate credit circuit.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 12443/2025 represents a further step in building a system for combating usury that is balanced and compliant with constitutional and European principles. Clearly defining the confiscatable profit avoids excessive penalties, ensures legal certainty, and offers concrete guidelines to magistrates, lawyers, and economic operators. The message is clear: the repression of usury also – and above all – involves the correct identification of illicit gains, so as to restore justice to victims and seize only what has been illicitly earned.