Italy’s Supreme Court upholds seizure of betting venues and accounts
Enforcement & compliance2 min read
Italy’s Court of Cassation rejected a defence appeal and upheld the preventive seizure of betting venues, commercial premises and bank accounts linked to a gaming company. The case concerns suspected fraudulent asset transfers and alleged assistance to organised crime; the seizure had been ordered by a preliminary investigations judge on 11 June 2026. The court said the lower court had adequately explained the risk of continued offending and further transfers of assets.
Italy's Court of Cassation has upheld the preventive seizure of betting venues, commercial premises and bank accounts linked to a gaming company under investigation for suspected fraudulent asset transfers and alleged assistance to organised crime. The court declared inadmissible a defence appeal against a 9 July order by L'Aquila's review court, leaving in place the seizure ordered by a preliminary investigations judge on 11 June 2026.
Investigators suspect the company was registered in one person's name while another managed it. Judges considered the family relationship between the people involved, the distinction between formal ownership and actual management, and the timing of the closure of an earlier business and the creation of the company. The Court of Cassation said the review court had properly considered those factors and the suspect's previous judicial matters, treating the latter as context rather than independent evidence.
In support of the alleged assistance to organised crime, the review court cited an investigation into mafia infiltration of gaming and betting, pending proceedings and links to people considered close to or members of mafia organisations. The Court of Cassation found the review court's reasoning adequate and said the company's objections sought a reassessment of the evidence that was not permitted at that stage.
The defence had argued that no concrete and current risk had been shown to justify keeping the seizure in place. The Court of Cassation said such a seizure required a concrete and current danger, with a reasonably certain possibility that the assets could be used for further offences or to aggravate or continue the alleged offence. The review court had identified risks that the consequences of the alleged offence would continue and that assets would be transferred to third parties. The Court of Cassation agreed, saying the reasoning identified continuing concerns about the alleged arrangement and the need to prevent further transfers.