FINFRAUD.ART · FINANCIAL FRAUD
Petrignani and Others v Italy
When Confiscation Outruns Individual Responsibility
ECHR case note · 28 May 2026
Confiscation is a powerful tool in the response to financial crime. It can prevent offenders from retaining illicit gains, but it also interferes with property rights and must rest on a sufficiently clear legal basis. The European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in Petrignani and Others v Italy addresses a recurring risk: treating several people as jointly responsible for a total amount without a sufficiently precise link between each person’s conduct and the property taken.
The judgment, delivered on 28 May 2026, concerned confiscation measures calculated by reference to proceeds attributed to offences committed by applicants and other co-offenders. The Court’s findings differed across the applications, making it important not to reduce the judgment to a single blanket rule.
01 · LEGAL CERTAINTY
A Property Measure Needs a Foreseeable Legal Basis
The Court identified a violation of Article 7 in one application because the confiscation order lacked a sufficiently clear and foreseeable legal basis for imposing joint liability in the circumstances. The principle is fundamental: a person must be able to understand, from the law and its interpretation, when conduct can attract a punitive measure and how its scope is determined.
This does not mean that every confiscation connected with joint offending is unlawful. The question is whether the applicable legal framework clearly authorises the measure imposed and whether its application is foreseeable in the particular case.
02 · PROPORTIONALITY
Collective Liability Can Become an Excessive Burden
For two applicants, the Court found that the confiscation orders exceeded their shares of the proceeds and were not sufficiently connected to their individual roles or the gravity of their conduct. Automatically imposing liability for the full amount can shift the burden of recovering other participants’ shares from the authorities to a single person.
The property-rights analysis under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 therefore asks more than whether the state has a legitimate aim. It also examines whether the interference strikes a fair balance and imposes an excessive individual burden. The Court found a violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions in the relevant applications.
03 · WHAT A SOUND RECORD SHOULD SHOW
Trace the Amount, the Conduct, and the Legal Authority
The case suggests a practical audit sequence for financial enforcement:
- Identify the statutory basis for the confiscation measure and the case law that makes its operation foreseeable.
- Determine what amount of proceeds is attributable to the person concerned, rather than assuming that the group total answers that question.
- Explain how the person’s role and conduct relate to the amount ordered.
- Test whether the measure transfers responsibility for recovering another person’s share onto the individual subject to the order.
These checks do not predetermine the outcome. They make the reasoning transparent and allow the legality and proportionality of the measure to be reviewed.
Financial accountability must remain individual enough to be lawful.
Confiscation can serve a legitimate public purpose. Its reach, however, must be supported by law and justified against the conduct and circumstances of the person whose property is taken.
Primary source