Preventive Seizure and Confiscation by Equivalent: Cassation 17894/2025 and the Limits of Impignorability

In the complex landscape of criminal law, the protection of assets and the rights of the parties involved require jurisprudential clarity. The recent judgment no. 17894 of 11/03/2025 (filed on 13/05/2025) by the Court of Cassation offers crucial clarifications on the applicability of impignorability limits (art. 545, paragraph 3, c.p.c.) in relation to preventive seizure and confiscation by equivalent. This decision, drafted by rapporteur E. G. and presided over by G. A., is of primary importance for distinguishing the position of the suspect from that of third parties unrelated to the crime, providing valuable guidance for asset protection.

Real Precautionary Measures: Seizure and Confiscation

Real precautionary measures, such as preventive seizure (art. 321 c.p.p.), aim to prevent the dispersal of assets related to a crime. Confiscation by equivalent (art. 322-ter c.p.), on the other hand, allows for the removal of assets from the offender of a value corresponding to the illicit profit. These tools are essential for criminal justice, but their application profoundly affects property rights.

Judgment 17894/2025: Impignorability Limits for the Suspect or a Third Party?

The Cassation addresses the application of the impignorability limits established by art. 545, paragraph 3, c.p.c., which protect a portion of sums received as salary, pension, and other indemnities. Judgment no. 17894/2025 unequivocally clarifies how these limits relate to confiscation by equivalent and the seizure aimed at it. Here is the full maxim:

In the context of real precautionary measures, the limits of impignorability referred to in art. 545, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable at every stage of the proceedings also to confiscation by equivalent and the seizure aimed at it, concern only the suspect whose sums of money have been seized, who is the effective "dominus" of those sums, and do not apply, however, to third parties unrelated to the crime, who, if they prove ownership of the seized sums, can claim the right to their full restitution.

The Court emphasizes that the impignorability limits apply exclusively to the suspect, as the "dominus" of the seized sums. For the suspect, the protections of art. 545, paragraph 3, c.p.c. ensure that an essential part of their means of subsistence remains untouched. Conversely, for third parties unrelated to the crime, these limits do not apply. If a third party proves to be the legitimate owner of the seized sums, they have the right to full restitution, without any deduction. This principle is fundamental to protecting the rights of those who, although not involved in the illicit act, suffer the consequences of precautionary measures.

• For the suspect: Application of impignorability limits pursuant to art. 545, paragraph 3, c.p.c.
• For third parties unrelated to the crime: Right to full restitution of seized sums, after proving ownership.

Protection of Third Parties: Practical Implications

The Cassation's ruling strengthens the position of third parties who may unintentionally find themselves involved in criminal proceedings. The property right of an innocent person must prevail over the logic of asset limitation applied to the perpetrator. It is essential for third parties to act promptly to demonstrate their unrelatedness to the crime and their legitimate ownership of the assets. Specialized legal advice is indispensable to navigate the procedural complexities and ensure the full protection of one's interests, avoiding unjust impoverishment for those who are not at fault.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 17894 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is a cornerstone in the jurisprudence on real precautionary measures. It reaffirms a fundamental principle: the financial consequences of crimes must affect the perpetrators, safeguarding the rights of third parties. This jurisprudential trend offers legal certainty and strengthens confidence in the judicial system, ensuring that justice is applied with rigor and proportionality, while also protecting the innocence and assets of citizens.