In a logic of enhancing the instrument of extended confiscation, provided for by art. 5 of the Directive n. 42/2014, the Italian legislator has included its discipline in the penal code as art. 240-bis c.p. (d.lgs. 21/2018). The law n. 161/2017 has significantly reformed the rules on extended confiscation of art. 12-sexies d.l. 306 / ’92, according to the jurisprudence less respectful of safeguards. The reform pursues the precise design of criminal policy to assimilate the discipline of this form of confiscation to that of the confiscation preventive measure (art. 24 d.lgs. n. 159/2011). The legislator has thus enshrined its application in the enforcement procedure in the absence of sufficient procedural safeguards, and, above all, it has enabled its application even when the offence is time barred (after a sentence of conviction) and the convicted person is dead (after the final sentence). The reform doesn’t allow to demonstrate the proportionate value of purchases (goods) through the proceeds of tax evasion, or even through not declared (for taxation) income. Furthermore, the problematic nature of the reform is improved by the fact that the legislator tends to extend more and more the scope of this form of confiscation to offences unrelated to its original logic, as the Constitutional Court has recently stressed with the ruling n. 33 of 2018. Everything is made even more paradoxical by the consideration that the legislator, if on one hand considers confiscation a fundamental instrument of criminal policy, on the other hand he did not take the opportunity, represented by the implementation of the directive n. 42/2014 with Legislative Decree no. 202/2016, to rationalize the general discipline of criminal confiscation.
In una logica di valorizzazione dello strumento della confisca allargata, prevista dall’art. 5 della direttiva n. 42/2014, il legislatore italiano ha ritenuto opportuno inserirne la disciplina nel codice penale come art. 240-bis (d.lgs. 21/2018). La legge n. 161/2017 ha riformato in maniera significativa la disciplina di tale forma di confisca, cristallizzando gli orientamenti giurisprudenziali meno garantisti, ma soprattutto perseguendo il preciso disegno di politica criminale di assimilarne la disciplina a quella della confisca misura di prevenzione. Il legislatore ha sancito così la sua applicazione nel procedimento di esecuzione in mancanza di sufficienti garanzie procedurali, ma soprattutto ne ha consentito l’applicazione anche in caso di prescrizione (dopo una sentenza di condanna) e di morte del condannato (dopo la sentenza definitiva), e senza la possibilità di dimostrare il valore proporzionato degli acquisti attraverso i proventi dell’evasione fiscale, se non addirittura attraverso il reddito imponibile sottratto alla tassazione. Tra l’altro la problematicità della riforma è accentuata dal fatto che il legislatore tende ad estendere sempre di più l’ambito di applicazione di tale forma di confisca a fattispecie estranee alla sua logica originaria, come da ultimo evidenziato anche dalla Corte costituzionale con la sentenza n. 33 del 2018. Il tutto è reso ancora più paradossale dalla considerazione che il legislatore, se da una parte considera la confisca uno strumento fondamentale di politica criminale, dall’altra non ha colto l’occasione rappresentata dal recepimento della direttiva n. 42/2014 con il d.lgs. n. 202/2016, per razionalizzare la disciplina generale della confisca penale
La riforma della confisca (d.lgs. 202/2016). Lo statuto della confisca allargata ex art. 240-bis c.p.: spada di Damocle sine die sottratta alla prescrizione (dalla l. 161/2017 al d.lgs. n. 21/2018)
Maugeri, Anna Maria
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
2018-01-01
Abstract
In a logic of enhancing the instrument of extended confiscation, provided for by art. 5 of the Directive n. 42/2014, the Italian legislator has included its discipline in the penal code as art. 240-bis c.p. (d.lgs. 21/2018). The law n. 161/2017 has significantly reformed the rules on extended confiscation of art. 12-sexies d.l. 306 / ’92, according to the jurisprudence less respectful of safeguards. The reform pursues the precise design of criminal policy to assimilate the discipline of this form of confiscation to that of the confiscation preventive measure (art. 24 d.lgs. n. 159/2011). The legislator has thus enshrined its application in the enforcement procedure in the absence of sufficient procedural safeguards, and, above all, it has enabled its application even when the offence is time barred (after a sentence of conviction) and the convicted person is dead (after the final sentence). The reform doesn’t allow to demonstrate the proportionate value of purchases (goods) through the proceeds of tax evasion, or even through not declared (for taxation) income. Furthermore, the problematic nature of the reform is improved by the fact that the legislator tends to extend more and more the scope of this form of confiscation to offences unrelated to its original logic, as the Constitutional Court has recently stressed with the ruling n. 33 of 2018. Everything is made even more paradoxical by the consideration that the legislator, if on one hand considers confiscation a fundamental instrument of criminal policy, on the other hand he did not take the opportunity, represented by the implementation of the directive n. 42/2014 with Legislative Decree no. 202/2016, to rationalize the general discipline of criminal confiscation.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.