Money laundering across borders: how these cases run
A laundering investigation almost never sits in one country. Evidence is gathered in one state on a request from another, and freezing and confiscation orders now circulate between EU member states with recognition close to automatic. The practical question is not what the charge says but where, and in which country, the defence can actually act.
The Italian offences
| Offence | Conduct | Provision |
|---|---|---|
| Handling | Receiving property from an offence to make a profit | Art. 648 Criminal Code |
| Laundering | Substituting or transferring so as to obstruct identification | Art. 648-bis |
| Use of unlawful property | Employing it in economic activity | Art. 648-ter |
| Self-laundering | The author of the predicate offence reinvesting the proceeds | Art. 648-ter.1 |
| Entity liability | Proceedings against the company itself | Legislative Decree 231/2001 |
| Confiscation | Mandatory on conviction, including by equivalent | Art. 648-quater |
Self-laundering is the provision that generates most cross-border work, because it allows the person who committed the underlying offence to be prosecuted again for what they did with the proceeds. Its limit is written into the text: the reinvestment must concretely obstruct identification of the criminal origin. Traceable transfers into accounts in your own name generally do not.
How the material moves between countries
Three mechanisms do most of the work, and each has its own points of attack.
- The European Investigation Order. One state asks another to carry out an investigative measure — obtain bank records, hear a witness, search premises. The grounds for refusal are limited and the timetable is short.
- Mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. An order made in one member state is enforced in another with very limited review by the executing authority.
- The European Public Prosecutor's Office, where the offences affect the financial interests of the Union: a single office investigating directly across participating states.
The consequence for the defence is structural. The executing authority will not re-examine the merits of the decision taken elsewhere: challenges to the substance belong in the issuing state. Contesting a freezing order only where the money is, without acting where the order was made, is the most common and most expensive error in this area.
Frozen accounts and the two clocks
An account frozen in a criminal investigation is normally tied to a calculation of the supposed profit. That calculation is the pressure point: it is very often overstated, and it fixes the ceiling of everything that follows, including confiscation by equivalent.
In Italy the deadline to apply for review of a seizure is ten days from execution. Where an order arrives from another state, there are two clocks running in two jurisdictions, and only coordinated action deals with both. The Italian side is described in financial crime investigations in Italy.
The company is a defendant too
Laundering and self-laundering are among the offences that trigger proceedings against the entity itself. The company's defence is about its organisation — whether a model capable of preventing offences of that type had been adopted and was actually working — and it is not the same defence as the individuals'. Keeping the two separate from the outset matters, because their interests diverge.
Where the defence has to be
These cases require counsel in each jurisdiction involved and someone holding the whole picture: a step taken in one country routinely determines what remains possible in another. That arrangement is described in how a correspondent case is run, and for instructing firms in the note for foreign law firms.
Frequently asked questions
Can Italy freeze an account held in another country?
Within the EU, freezing and confiscation orders circulate with recognition close to automatic, and the executing authority carries out only a limited review.
Where do I challenge a freezing order?
Challenges to the substance belong in the state that issued the order. Contesting it only where the money is held is the most common and most expensive error.
What is self-laundering?
Reinvesting the proceeds of your own offence in a way that concretely obstructs identification of their criminal origin. Traceable transfers into your own accounts generally do not meet that test.
Is my company prosecuted as well?
Laundering and self-laundering trigger proceedings against the entity itself, judged on its organisation rather than on the conduct of the individuals.
If an order has arrived
Establishing which state issued it, and where it can be challenged, is the first step and it is urgent. First contact is free and covered by professional privilege.