← Back to Case Law
🇮🇹 Italy →
3 cases foundThe seizure (urgently executed by the police) must be validated by the Court of Appeal
✕
Summary
In extradition matters, the seizure of the corpus delicti and of items pertaining thereto, ordered on an urgent basis by the judicial police within the framework of an extradition procedure, must be validated by the Court of Appeal. The latter is required to provide reasons—on the basis of the applicable conventional framework, as well as Article 714(1) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, insofar as not derogated—regarding the existence of a nexus of pertinence between the seized assets and the offence underlying the extradition request, through an assessment of the evidentiary needs put forward by the requesting foreign authority (in the present case, a seizure carried out by the judicial police in the context of an extradition procedure initiated by the United States of America).
25/09/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 35238/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Procedural orderExtraditionExtradition to Argentina, seizure of assets and connection with the extradition request
✕
Summary
In matters of passive extradition, pursuant to Article 20(a) and (b) of the Italy–Argentina Extradition Convention, signed in Rome on 9 December 1987 and ratified and implemented by Law No. 219 of 19 February 1992, the seizure of assets to be surrendered to the requesting State presupposes that such assets are connected to the offence underlying the extradition request, in that they constitute either means of evidence or proceeds thereof. The latter are to be understood, in accordance with Article 714(1) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, as the corpus delicti or items pertaining to the offence.
20/03/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 15113/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇦🇷Argentina
GrantedExtraditionWithdrawal of the extradition request and revocation of seizure
✕
Summary
The withdrawal of the extradition request entails the revocation of real precautionary measures, with the consequent return to the rightful owner of the assets subject to seizure, given that—pursuant to Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20 April 1959—the requesting State is not entitled to dispose of assets obtained through the execution of a letter rogatory that has subsequently been withdrawn. (In the present case, the Court quashed without remittal the order by which the Court of Appeal had ordered the return of the seized assets, limited to those not yet transferred to the requesting authority).
11/09/2018 · Italian Supreme Court · 48284/2018
🇮🇹Italy → 🇬🇧United Kingdom
Procedural orderExtradition