Italy’s Cassation Court upholds seizure of L’Aquila betting premises
Enforcement & compliance2 min read
Italy’s Cassation Court rejected an appeal over the preventive seizure of betting premises, commercial properties and bank accounts linked to a betting company. The seizure remains in place, but the court’s 15 October 2026 decision concerns a precautionary measure and is not a conviction; the case involves alleged fraudulent transfer of assets and alleged mafia facilitation.
Italy’s Cassation Court ruled inadmissible an appeal against the preventive seizure of betting premises, commercial properties and bank accounts in a case involving alleged fraudulent transfer of assets aggravated by alleged mafia facilitation. The decision at a hearing on 15 October 2026 concerned a precautionary measure and was not a conviction.
The original measure dates to 11 June 2026. The L’Aquila court upheld the seizure of assets linked to a betting company on 9 July.
The defence challenged the reasoning on evidence of the alleged offence and aggravating circumstance, as well as the reasons given for the risk underpinning the seizure. The Cassation Court said the lower court had adequately explained the evidence supporting the allegation. Among the factors considered were the difference between the company’s formal ownership and actual management, the family relationship between the people involved and the timing of the suspect’s previous business closure and the company’s formation. The alleged manager’s prior judicial history, including a seizure in 2018 that was later annulled, was treated as context rather than independent evidence.
On the alleged mafia facilitation, the lower court cited investigations into infiltration of gambling and betting, pending proceedings against the alleged manager, links to people considered close to or part of mafia groups, and the company’s activity in the same sector. The Cassation Court said appeals against decisions on precautionary measures over assets are permitted only on grounds of a violation of law. The judges found that the appeal sought a reassessment of the evidence that was not permitted at that stage.
The Cassation Court found that the lower court had adequately explained the risk justifying the seizure. The lower court had identified risks that the consequences of the alleged offence would continue and that assets would be dispersed through further transfers of title to third parties. The appellant was ordered to pay court costs and €3,000 to the Cassa delle ammende.