Territorial Jurisdiction in Tax Crimes: Cassation Sentence No. 11637/2025

The Italian judicial system is founded on principles of clarity and legal certainty, crucial elements especially when dealing with complex issues such as territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings. A recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, sentence no. 11637 filed on March 24, 2025, offers significant clarification on tax crimes, particularly those related to the issuance of invoices or other documents for non-existent transactions. This decision, presided over by Dr. G. A. and with Dr. A. C. as rapporteur, addresses a delicate aspect of tax criminal law, providing valuable guidance for the application of art. 18, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree no. 74 of 2000.

The Regulatory Framework: Art. 18, paragraph 3, Legislative Decree 74/2000

Legislative Decree no. 74 of 2000 is the primary Italian legislation governing crimes related to income and value-added taxes. Article 18, paragraph 3, of this decree is specifically dedicated to determining territorial jurisdiction in cases of the crime of issuing invoices or other documents for non-existent transactions, a particularly insidious offense for the treasury and market fairness. This provision establishes precise criteria for identifying the competent court, typically designating the location of the tax administration that suffered the damage or, failing that, the place where the crime was ascertained.

The issue that often arises in practice is how to apply this criterion when the crime of false invoicing is not an isolated act but is part of a broader context of connected crimes. The connection between crimes, governed by articles 12 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can create complexities in determining jurisdiction, risking to slow down proceedings and create application uncertainties. It is precisely on this point that Cassation sentence no. 11637/2025 makes a fundamental contribution.

The Cassation's Clarification: Applicability to Connected Crimes

The Court of Cassation was called upon to rule on whether the special criterion for determining territorial jurisdiction, provided for by art. 18, paragraph 3, Legislative Decree no. 74 of 2000, can also apply when the crime of issuing invoices or other documents for non-existent transactions is connected to other crimes, some of which do not fall under the specific provision of art. 8 of the same decree. The answer provided by the Supreme Court is clear and aims to ensure coherence and uniformity in the application of the rules.

The sentence reiterates that the special territorial jurisdiction criterion for false invoices is not limited to cases where the crime is autonomous but also extends to situations of connection. This means that, even if there are other connected crimes, for the part relating to the crime of invoices or documents for non-existent transactions, reference must be made to art. 18, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree no. 74 of 2000. This approach avoids procedural fragmentation and ensures that the tax crime is judged according to its specific regulations.

To better understand the scope of this decision, it is useful to consider the different types of tax crimes and their interconnection. Often, the issuance of false invoices is instrumental to:

• Evading VAT and direct taxes.
• Establishing black funds.
• Carrying out carousel fraud.
• Money laundering.

In these complex scenarios, the Cassation sentence offers clear guidance, indicating that, for determining jurisdiction related to the crime of false invoices, priority must be given to the specific criterion provided by special legislation, even if the other connected crimes might, in themselves, attract jurisdiction in a different forum.

The Ruling of Sentence No. 11637/2025: A Fundamental Principle

The criterion for determining territorial jurisdiction under art. 18, paragraph 3, legislative decree of March 10, 2000, no. 74, specifically provided for the crime of issuing invoices or other documents for non-existent transactions, also applies in the case of multiple connected crimes, only some of which are classifiable under art. 8 legislative decree no. 74 of 2000, taking into account the single criminal act to be considered.

This ruling crystallizes a principle of fundamental importance for tax criminal law. In simple terms, the Supreme Court has established that, when it comes to identifying the competent judge for a false invoicing crime, the special criterion established by art. 18, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree no. 74/2000 prevails and applies even if the crime is "linked" or "connected" to other offenses. The key element is that the assessment of jurisdiction must be made "taking into account the single criminal act to be considered." This means that, even if an investigation involves multiple crimes (e.g., false invoices and money laundering), for the part relating to false invoices, the competent court will be the one identified by art. 18, paragraph 3, Legislative Decree no. 74/2000. This interpretation ensures that the special legislation for tax crimes maintains its specificity and effectiveness, preventing the presence of other crimes from diverting the application of a jurisdiction criterion designed to specifically combat tax evasion through the use of false documents. It is a principle that strengthens the specialization and coherence of the judicial system in tax matters.

Conclusions

Sentence no. 11637/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents an essential reference point for the interpretation and application of rules on territorial jurisdiction in tax crimes. By confirming the prevalence of the special criterion provided by art. 18, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree no. 74 of 2000, even in the presence of connected crimes, the Supreme Court has provided a clear answer to a question of great practical relevance. This decision contributes to strengthening legal certainty, simplifying the management of complex criminal proceedings, and ensuring that tax fraud crimes are prosecuted with maximum effectiveness, according to the specific provisions of the law. For legal professionals and taxpayers, this is a ruling that consolidates the understanding of a crucial aspect of tax criminal law, ensuring greater predictability and coherence in judicial action.