Confiscation of Mafia Assets: Ruling 11456/2025 and the Exclusion of the Third-Party Owner's Good Faith

The fight against organised crime, particularly mafia-type associations, is waged on multiple fronts. In addition to direct repressive action against affiliates, a fundamental pillar is the attack on illicit assets. In this context, asset confiscation represents a powerful tool aimed at depriving criminal organisations of vital resources. The recent Ruling No. 11456 of 05/03/2025 (filed on 21/03/2025) by the Court of Cassation, presided over by D. M. G. and reported by A. S., offers essential clarifications on the limits of a third-party owner's good faith in cases of assets used for mafia interests. A decision that further strengthens the effectiveness of asset-based measures and deserves careful analysis to understand its implications.

The Strategic Role of Confiscation in Combating Organised Crime

Our legal system provides incisive tools to combat organised crime. Among these, Article 416-bis of the Criminal Code penalises the crime of mafia-type association, while Article 240 of the Criminal Code governs confiscation, understood as a patrimonial security measure. Confiscation, particularly that provided for by the seventh paragraph of Art. 416-bis of the Criminal Code, aims to deprive criminal organisations of the means and tools with which they operate, affecting not only assets directly derived from the crime but also those which, although owned by third parties, have been permanently used for the interests of the association. The objective is twofold: to punish the crime and to prevent the asset from continuing to be used for illicit purposes, thereby dismantling the economic structure of mafias.

Ruling 11456/2025: When the Third Party is Not in Good Faith

The specific case examined by the Court of Cassation concerned the defendant C. M., for whom the GIP of the Court of Naples had rejected a previous request. The central issue was the confiscation of a property that had been designated as an "operational base and fortress" of a mafia association. The crucial point was to determine whether the third-party owner could invoke good faith to avoid the confiscation of the asset. The Supreme Court, with ruling 11456/2025, provided a clear and unequivocal answer, outlining the boundaries within which such an exemption can be excluded.

In matters of confiscation of an asset permanently used for the interests of a mafia association, ordered pursuant to Art. 416-bis, seventh paragraph, of the Criminal Code, the good faith of the third-party owner must be excluded if the full knowledge of the illicit act relating to the appropriation and use of the asset by the association is ascertained, and the voluntary failure by the third party to exercise the prerogatives of the right of ownership. (Case concerning a property used as an operational base and "fortress" of the mafia association).

This maxim is of fundamental importance. The Court emphasises that good faith cannot be recognised to the third-party owner if two essential and cumulative conditions are met:

• Full knowledge of the illicit act relating to the appropriation and use of the asset by the criminal association. This does not mean mere suspicion, but concrete and ascertained awareness that one's asset is being used for illicit purposes linked to the mafia.
• The voluntary failure by the third party to exercise the prerogatives of the right of ownership. In other words, the owner, despite being aware of the illicit use, failed to act, to oppose, to protect their asset, effectively leaving it at the disposal of the criminal organisation. It is not enough to be the holder of a right; it must be exercised with diligence, especially when signs of improper use by third parties are perceived.

The ruling, therefore, highlights responsibility not only for those who directly commit the crime but also for those who, without being members of the association, contribute to enabling criminal activity through their inaction or culpable tolerance, by making essential assets available to the association.

Practical Implications and Owner's Responsibility

This decision is part of a consolidated line of case law but further strengthens its principles. The decision by the Court of Cassation to reject the request of the defendant C. M. reiterates that good faith is not an automatic shield. Owners of real estate, or any other asset, have a duty of vigilance and active management. If an asset is permanently used for illicit mafia-related purposes, and the owner is aware of this but does not act to restore legality or recover possession, they lose the protection of good faith, and the asset becomes subject to confiscation. This implies that the formal ownership of the right of ownership must be accompanied by effective and diligent exercise, in line with the principles of legality and the fight against crime.

Conclusions: A Warning for Patrimonial Diligence

Ruling No. 11456/2025 by the Court of Cassation serves as a significant warning to all asset owners. The fight against organised crime requires a collective effort, and even mere omission can have serious consequences. The legal system, through tools like confiscation, aims to sever all links between assets and illicit activities, even when these assets formally belong to third parties. It is a principle of justice that seeks to prevent inertia or culpable tolerance from indirectly favouring mafia activities. Diligence in exercising the right of ownership is not only a moral obligation but an essential condition for protecting one's assets against the claims of the State in its relentless fight against all forms of organised crime.