In brief. In Italian tax proceedings, the State does not wait for a conviction to strike at a defendant’s wealth. From the early investigative phase a court can order preventive seizure (sequestro preventivo) aimed at the later confiscation (confisca) of the proceeds and profit of the offence — and, where those are unavailable, of other assets of equivalent value (confisca anche per equivalente). For non-resident clients this means bank accounts, real estate, shareholdings and even foreign assets can be frozen within days. Mounting a prompt, technically grounded challenge to the seizure is often the single most important step in the whole defence.

Why seizure comes first

In tax-crime cases the financial measure frequently precedes any meaningful debate on the merits. The rationale is straightforward: the criminal sanction in D.Lgs 74/2000 is paired with the recovery of the evaded tax, and the law equips the prosecution to secure the relevant assets before the defendant can dissipate them. The result is that many clients experience the proceeding first as a frozen account or a registered charge on property, and only later as a formal charge.

Two instruments dominate. Preventive seizure (sequestro preventivo) under art. 321 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.) is the interim freeze applied during the investigation and trial. Confiscation (confisca) is the final, definitive deprivation, ordered with the judgment. The seizure is, in practice, the advance guard of the confiscation.

Sequestro preventivo: the interim freeze

A sequestro preventivo finalizzato alla confisca (preventive seizure for the purposes of confiscation) is ordered by the giudice per le indagini preliminari (preliminary-investigation judge) on the prosecutor’s application. It requires the existence of fumus commissi delicti — a plausible indication that the offence has been committed — and an asset that can be connected to the confiscation regime.

The measure can reach bank and securities accounts, immovable property, company shares, vehicles and credits. It is typically executed without prior notice. Because the threshold for the seizure is lower than the standard for conviction, an order can issue on a still-incomplete evidential picture — which is precisely why it is so often vulnerable to challenge.

Confisca and confisca per equivalente

Confiscation in tax matters rests on art. 12-bis D.Lgs 74/2000, which provides for the confiscation of the price or profit (prezzo o profitto) of the offence. Where the direct proceeds cannot be located in the defendant’s estate — because they have been spent, transferred or commingled — the law authorises confiscation by equivalent (confisca per equivalente or di valore): the State takes other lawful assets of the defendant up to the monetary value of the evaded tax.

The distinction is fundamental to the defence. Direct confiscation follows the tainted asset and can, in principle, reach a third party who holds it. Confiscation by equivalent is sanctionary in nature, attaches only to assets of the perpetrator, and — under settled case law of the Corte di Cassazione — cannot exceed the actual profit of the offence. Quantification therefore becomes the battleground: every euro by which the profit is reduced is a euro released from seizure. For the gravest frauds, extended confiscation (confisca allargata) may also come into play, reversing the burden of explaining the lawful origin of disproportionate wealth.

A point of constant practical importance: under art. 12-bis, confiscation does not apply to the portion of the tax debt the taxpayer undertakes to pay, and payment reduces it accordingly, since the State cannot recover the same amount twice. Since D.Lgs 87/2024, seizure for confiscation is not ordered while the tax debt is being regularly paid under an instalment plan, unless the court finds a concrete risk of dispersal of the assets. Coordinating payment with the seizure challenge is a core tactical decision.

Foreign assets and cross-border enforcement

For ILA’s international clientele the cross-border reach of these measures is decisive. Within the EU, seizure and confiscation orders circulate under Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders, directly applicable since 19 December 2020 and supplemented in Italy by D.Lgs 203/2023, allowing an Italian order to be enforced against assets located in another Member State — and vice versa. Outside the EU, enforcement runs through mutual legal assistance treaties and bilateral judicial cooperation.

This means a non-resident director cannot assume that property held abroad is beyond reach, nor that an Italian account is the only exposure. Equally, it opens defence avenues: the recognition procedure in the executing State has its own grounds for refusal, and challenges can be advanced both in Italy and in the country of enforcement. The firm’s cross-border coordination is described in the tax crimes pillar.

Challenging the seizure: the defence toolkit

A seizure order is not the end of the matter — Italian procedure provides fast, layered remedies, and speed is everything.

  • Riesame (review). Within ten days the defence may apply to the Tribunale del riesame (review court) for a full re-examination of the seizure, challenging both the existence of the offence and the link to the confiscable assets (artt. 322 and 324 c.p.p.).
  • Appeal and Cassation. Orders other than the seizure decree itself (for example, a refusal to release assets) can be appealed under art. 322-bis c.p.p.; the review decision can be challenged on points of law before the Corte di Cassazione (art. 325 c.p.p.).
  • Quantification challenge. Independent technical reconstruction of the profit of the offence is frequently the most productive line: reducing the figure shrinks the perimeter of both seizure and confiscation.
  • Proportionality and necessity. The defence can argue that the measure exceeds the confiscable amount, that less invasive options exist, or that the seized asset is unconnected to the offence.
  • Third-party rights. Spouses, companies and other bona fide holders can intervene to protect assets wrongly caught by the order.

Because the riesame deadline is short and the practical consequences of a frozen account are immediate — payroll, suppliers, mortgage instalments — the firm treats a tax seizure as an emergency from the first call.

For the substantive offences that trigger these measures, see tax fraud in Italy (D.Lgs 74/2000). To act on a seizure already in place, contact the firm via the contact page.

FAQ

Can my assets be seized before I am convicted of a tax crime? Yes. Preventive seizure (sequestro preventivo) under art. 321 c.p.p. can be ordered during the investigation, before any conviction, provided there is a plausible indication of the offence and assets connected to the confiscation regime. It is the most common first step in Italian tax proceedings.

What is confiscation by equivalent? Confisca per equivalente allows the State to confiscate lawful assets of the defendant up to the monetary value of the evaded tax when the direct proceeds of the offence cannot be located. Under art. 12-bis D.Lgs 74/2000 and Cassation case law it cannot exceed the actual profit of the offence and attaches only to the perpetrator’s assets.

Can foreign assets be reached by an Italian tax seizure? Often, yes. Within the EU, Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 allows mutual recognition and enforcement of freezing and confiscation orders across Member States; outside the EU, mutual legal assistance treaties apply. Defences exist both in Italy and in the country of enforcement.

Contact the firm

A seizure carries a strict ten-day deadline for review. If your accounts, property or shareholdings have been frozen in an Italian tax case, contact the firm immediately. See the tax crimes pillar, the firm profile, or write to us through the contact page.