Preventive Seizure and Corporate Liability: The Keys to Cassation Ruling 19717 of 2025

In the landscape of corporate criminal law, the issue of corporate liability under Legislative Decree 231/2001 is constantly relevant and a source of debate. A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Cassation, judgment no. 19717, filed on May 27, 2025, offers fundamental clarification regarding the application of real precautionary measures, particularly preventive seizure, against such legal entities. This decision, presided over by Dr. F. G. and reported by Dr. S. P., rejects the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Trani of September 23, 2024, outlining a very precise perimeter for judicial intervention.

The Regulatory Context: Legislative Decree 231/2001 and Art. 321 c.p.p.

Corporate administrative liability for offences, introduced by Legislative Decree 231/2001, represented a true revolution, extending the punishability of certain offences to legal persons as well. This system provides for a catalogue of specific sanctions, ranging from financial penalties to disqualifications (such as the prohibition from carrying out the activity, suspension or revocation of authorizations, prohibition from contracting with the Public Administration, etc.), governed by Articles 9, 13, and 14 of the Decree. In parallel, the Code of Criminal Procedure, in Article 321, paragraph 1, provides for preventive seizure, a real precautionary measure aimed at preventing the free availability of an item related to the offence from aggravating or prolonging the consequences of the offence or facilitating the commission of other offences. The central question that arises is: can these two regulations coexist, or does one exclude the other when the entity is already deemed liable?

The Maxim of Ruling 19717/2025: A Turning Point

The Court of Cassation, with ruling 19717/2025, has provided a clear and peremptory answer, which deserves in-depth analysis. Here is the full maxim:

In the matter of real precautionary measures, preventive seizure, as referred to in Article 321, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be ordered against an entity for which criminal liability has been found to exist.

This statement is of significant scope. The Supreme Court establishes that, once the criminal liability of the entity under Legislative Decree 231/2001 has been ascertained, it is no longer possible to apply the preventive seizure provided for by Article 321, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The reason for this exclusion lies in the specificity and completeness of the sanctioning system provided for by Legislative Decree 231/2001. The disqualification measures provided for by Articles 13 and 14 of the Decree are, in fact, already aimed at preventing the repetition of offences and the aggravation of their consequences, specifically fulfilling that preventive function which is characteristic of preventive seizure. In other words, the legislator of Decree 231 has already provided a "