Cassazione Penale - Sentenza n. 11987/2026

Key Facts

Issues

• The second issue involves the court's decision to revoke the confiscation of Bat Noleggio Snc, an enterprise deemed 'mafiosa' by the lower court. The Procuratore Generale contends that the Corte d'Appello provided no adequate reasoning for dismissing Agresta's role as a 'socio d'opera' (work partner), despite his active management of the company (e.g., placing gaming machines and resolving disputes). The court's assertion that Agresta lacked formal ownership or capital investment is criticized as ignoring evidence of his indirect control and the fraudulent use of false invoices to siphon company funds.
• The first issue centers on whether the Corte d'Appello di Torino correctly concluded that Domenico Agresta's current social danger had ceased. The Procuratore Generale argues that the court omitted critical factors, such as Agresta's familial ties to the 'ndrangheta (his father was a convicted affiliate), his failure to dissociate from criminal activities, and the credibility of collaborator Domenico Agresta's testimony describing his ongoing involvement. The court's reliance on Agresta's post-scarceration conduct and relocation to Switzerland is challenged as insufficient to demonstrate genuine disengagement from organized crime.

Holdings

• The court annulled the revocation of the preventive measures against Agresta Domenico, finding that the lower court failed to adequately assess the current social danger based on his continued ties to the 'ndrangheta and lack of dissociation. The decision also overturned the revocation of the Bat Noleggio SNC confiscation due to insufficient motivation regarding Agresta's operational role in the company.
• The court rejected Cinzia Gambino's appeal against the confiscation of immovable assets, determining that new evidence (including post-2023 convictions of associated individuals) provided sufficient grounds to justify the confiscation despite prior revocation in execution proceedings.

Remedies

• The court annuls the contested decree regarding the revocation of the personal preventive measure against Domenico Agresta and the confiscation of BAT NOLEGGIO SNC and related assets, with referral to the Court of Appeal of Torino for new judgment. The court also rejects Cinzia Gambino's appeal, ordering her to pay the court costs.
• The court rejects Cinzia Gambino's appeal challenging the confiscation of her property, finding no legal basis for the ne bis in idem claim. Gambino is ordered to pay the court costs.

Legal Principles

• The court addressed the principle of res judicata, emphasizing that once a judgment becomes final, it precludes re-litigation of the same issues in subsequent proceedings. This was applied to the revocation of confiscation measures by the Court of Appeal, which the Cassation Court found legally binding absent new evidence.
• The purposive approach to legal interpretation was applied to assess the intent behind preventive measures, focusing on their social protection goals rather than mere procedural compliance. The court emphasized the need to align decisions with the broader objectives of anti-mafia legislation.
• The judgment discusses the presumption of continuity in mafia associations, noting that familial ties and prior affiliations can create a presumption of ongoing involvement unless explicitly rebutted through clear evidence of dissociation and behavioral change.
• The court highlighted the necessity of meeting a high standard of proof to assess the current danger of an individual. It criticized the lower court for failing to adequately evaluate evidence of ongoing criminal ties and for relying on insufficiently substantiated claims of rehabilitation.
• The court reaffirmed adherence to the Rule of Law by strictly applying statutory requirements for preventive measures under d.lgs. 159/2011, ensuring that decisions align with legislative intent and judicial precedents rather than speculative or assertive reasoning.

Precedent Name

• Fortuna
• Gattuso
• Bevilacqua
• Paviglianiti
• Trovato
• Licciardiello

Cited Statute

• Legislative Decree No. 159 of 2011
• Code of Criminal Procedure
• Penal Code

Judge Name

• Giacomo Rocchi
• Micaela Serena Curami

Passage Text

• Invero, dovendosi ancorare la cessazione della permanenza alla data di pronuncia della sentenza di primo grado.
• Trattasi di una motivazione sostanzialmente assertiva entro la quale non è dato comprendere l'esatto iter logico e argomentativo che ha portato la Corte all'esito decisorio.
• In particolare, il passaggio in giudicato della sentenza che ha condannato Paparo per il reato di associazione mafiosa... e la stessa famiglia Agresta, sono successivi alla decisione assunta in incidente di esecuzione.