The facts
Matter: gun law and public safety
Scope: seizure of weapons in the event of the death of the accused
Reference regulations: art. 20bis law 18 April 1975 n.110, art. 129 paragraph 2, cpp
Tizia is reported for failing to preserve her weapons with due diligence.
Among other things, the weapons at issue were returned to the owner. It will be precisely this point that triggers the appeal by the Attorney General.
According to the Prosecutor, the weapons initially seized should in no way be returned to Tizia.
Furthermore, another factual element of great importance will be the death of the defendant in the proceedings, which will occur on 13 January 2024. This fact will certainly have important consequences on the proceedings.
Death of the accused and seizure of weapons: let’s clarify
Without going into details that would be difficult, it certainly appears very useful in this context to explain what the relevant legislation says regarding the death of the accused and the mandatory seizure of weapons.
First of all it seems useful to remember what the art tells us. 129 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which following the death of the accused, it is essentially impossible to continue the proceedings against him, clearly eliminating the procedural relationship.
However, as regards the mandatory seizure of weapons, and the cases in which the weapons can be returned to the defendant, once the proceedings have ended, it is useful to recall the orientation of the relevant jurisprudence, now peacefully consolidated.
According to the Court of Cassation, in fact the financial security measure of confiscation is imposed for all crimes, including contraventions, concerning weapons, and is mandatory even in the event of extinction of the crime, remaining excluded only in the case of acquittal on the merits and in that of ownership of the weapon by a person unrelated to the crime.
The sentence
The sentence in question, although ordering that the appealed sentence be annulled without postponement due to the death of the accused, will agree with the Prosecutor in the part in which he orders that the weapons should have remained seized.
In fact, reading the text of the sentence, we read that the security measure of confiscation is imposed for all crimes concerning weapons and is also mandatory in the case of acquittal of the accused due to his death or due to the statute of limitations of the crime, having to be considered excluded only in the case of acquittal on the merits due to the non-existence of the illicit act being contested. Consequently, only in the case of non-existence of the crime, ruled on the merits, does the material prerequisite that makes confiscation obligatory, constituted by the commission of a crime concerning weapons, cease to exist.
It further follows that any phenomena terminating the crime, such as the statute of limitations or the death of the accused, both of which have occurred, do not preclude the mandatory confiscation of the seized weapons and ammunition, it being necessary, in this regard, to reiterate that the asset security measure must be excluded only in the case of non-existence of the charges or of the confiscatable assets belonging to subjects unrelated to the crime.
Still on this point, it seems useful to recall the rationale of the law which imposes, in any case, the seizure of weapons, and authorizes their return only in certain specific cases.
The intention of the legislator is always to protect public safety, and therefore he sets himself the objective of preventing weapons from circulating in an unclear manner, preventing the Administration from being and remaining unaware of the number of weapons present in the territory. , and who owns it at a certain time.
