The fight against international terrorism has, in recent decades, taken on more relevance at the national and international levels. In particular, the terroristic organizations’ need to raise funds for their survival has made it possible to understand the importance of the terrorism financing phenomenon. The analysis of the latter is the core of this work, focusing on the evolution of the discipline of financing terrorism and its links with money laundering and new technologies. Attention will be focused on the new Italian legislation relating to financing terrorism, contained in the newly introduced Article 270 quinques.1 of the Italian Penal Code and on the critical issues that characterize it. Finally, a brief focus will be dedicated to the new European Reform proposal on this phenomenon, established by the EU Commission’s Action Plan 2016.
The key question of fundamental rights protection in the matter of asset freezing in the fight against terrorism has once again been submitted before the European Court of Justice, after the Council of Europe appealed the General Court’s judgments annulling the Council decisions, keeping Hamas and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam on the European fund-freezing list. Moreover, it is also interesting to compare the international preventive measure of asset freezing directed against certain persons and entities for the purpose of combating terrorism with the Italian non-conviction based confiscation applicable towards individuals included in the blacklists. This comparison reveals that the national confiscation, as a judicial measure, guarantees procedural rights and fair trial standards better than asset freezing
Legislative Decree No. 7 dated 18 February 2015 modified the Italian Penal Code by introducing two new criminal law provisions, which punish recruits (Article 270-quater, second paragraph) and those persons who train themselves for the purpose of committing acts of terrorism (Article 270-quinquies, second sentence). Lack of clarity and overlap with other criminal law provisions are two of the main features of the above-mentioned Legislative Decree 7/2015. Perhaps, the true reason for this measure is to provide greater tools to the police in order to prevent terrorism and allow the judicial authorities to obtain evidence.
Through an analysis of the most recent case law, the Author argues that the conduct of joining a terroristic association cannot be considered only a psychological membership, but must be assessed with respect the effective contribution for the carrying out of the criminal plan of the association pursuant to Article 270-sexies of the Italian Penal Code. The assessment of membership status must be concretely evaluated according to the effectiveness of the criminal structure, in order to distinguish this conduct from the various offences of facilitation provided by Article 270-ter and following of the Italian Penal Code.
The dangerousness of terrorism and its ability to transform and renew itself in all its manifestations pose significant problems for investigators. This article proposes a series of considerations concerning counterterrorism investigative coordination, focusing, in particular, on the possibility of reconsidering the current coordination system, even in light of the experience gained from the fight against mafia and ideological terrorism. Despite the intervention of the legislature, which recently established the Anti-mafia and Antiterrorism National Prosecutor’s Office, some problems still remain. The goal, therefore, is to identify these problems and uniformly implement coordination starting with the investigative practice of the National Prosecutor's Office.
The measures developed at the supranational level in order to adequately respond to evolving terrorist threats impose, among other things, the punishability of public provocation and incitement to commit terrorist offenses. However, while there is a legitimate need to fight the acts of proselytism proliferating in some places of worship by means of certain preachers and by way of the internet and social media, increasingly becoming the main channels used by terrorists to spread propaganda, it is likely to affect the constitutionally and conventionally recognized freedom of speech. Therefore, given a possible expansion of the ambit of the criminal action, it is paramount to identify what the tolerable limit of flexibility of such a fundamental right is, in the name of collective security
This article analyses the dynamics relating to the use of tools proper of the criminal law proceedings for different objectives such as the prevention of the commission of certain types of crimes, with a main focus on the regulation of preventive wiretapping.
Acts of terrorism use the intricate and widespread network of information communicated through computer systems as an important source: the control and management of this flow of communication is, therefore, an essential prerequisite in the fight against the terroristic phenomenon and in the field of investigations within the criminal law process. In this context, we see the use of investigative tools such as IT sensors risk placing a considerable strain on an individual’s right to privacy, due to their markedly invasive power. Most European countries have, therefore, found themselves coping with the challenge of balancing between the effectiveness of certain technologies and the traditional protection of fundamental freedoms; an unequalled heritage of Western legal culture. Italy is not exempt from this challenge. In this brief article, I seek to re-evaluate, especially in light of a recent judgment from the Joint Divisions of the Court of Cassation, the national situation while also taking into consideration the solutions adopted in other European Union countries.
The present article aims to offer an overview of existing and future legal instruments in the EU judicial cooperation against terrorism, with some critical comments on their actual effectiveness. Starting from the resolution of conflicts of jurisdictions, this article proceeds to an analysis of the rules concerning the exchange of information and operative tools. Finally, it illustrates the relevant jurisprudence by the European Courts concerning judicial cooperation against terrorism and it provides some suggestions for reforming the EU legal framework.
This article aims to outline the main features of the new instrument of judicial cooperation and its place in the relationship between the District Attorney and the Anti-mafia and Anti-terrorism National Prosecutor’s Office.