with the scientific collaboration of
ISSN 2611-8858

Topics

Confiscation

The EU Regulation on the Mutual Recognition of Freezing Orders and Confiscation Orders is in Force

Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018, in force since 19 December 2020

Confiscation and seizure for tax crimes after the Italian “Tax Decree” no. 124 of 2019

Law Decree no. 124/2019 (conv. into Law. N. 157/2019) lastly amended Leg. Decree n. 74/2000 in order to enhance its effectiveness in combatting tax evasion, through the introduction of more severe criminal sanctions. Notably, both the provisions on extended confiscation (Artt. 12 ter Leg. Decree n. 74/2000) and the new direct liability of legal entities for tax fraud committed by their representatives (Art. 25 quinquiesdecies Leg. Decree no. 231/2001, lastly amendend by Decree Law n. 75/2020) increase powers of confiscating and freezing proceeds of fiscal offences. Thus, it is essential to ensure that the fight against tax evasion respects fundamental rights and the requirements of fairness and proportionality, as required by European Court of Human Rights and Italian Constitutional Court

Reflections on the quantification of proceeds and on the legal nature of direct confiscation and confiscation of substitute assets

The article deals with the nature of proceeds confiscation, both "direct" and of "substitute assets". Analysing Italian criminal case law, the article tries to demonstrate how the nature of confiscation depends on the determination of the value of proceeds and on its consequent effect of "impoverishment" or mere "restoration" of the personal asset. The conclusion is that the confiscation currently has a punitive character, though it is not supported by all the constitutional guarantees surrounding the criminal sanctions. The article investigates the possible solutions to overcome this “aporia”, concluding that – given the incompatibility of the confiscation to the principle of proportionality and individualization of the penalty – confiscation could be considered as a merely restorative tool, from an "author-centric" point of view. Coherently the relevant constitutional guarantees could be reshaped and various practical effects "in bonam partem" could be obtained