Arts. 109 and 110 CP
Content and the civil reservation
Restitution, repair of the damage and compensation of material and moral losses, also to relatives and third parties. The injured party may reserve the civil action for the civil jurisdiction: the reservation is decided with a calculator (procedural interest, civil time limits, solvency). In negligence cases with a strong insurer, the later civil claim sometimes yields more; against insolvents, the criminal route with its preventive attachments is the only real one. The decision is signed informed.
Arts. 114 and 115 CP
Moderation and stated bases
If the victim contributed with their conduct to the damage, the compensation may be moderated, and courts must reasonably establish the bases of the quantification. Contributory fault moderates compensation also in criminal cases: we invoke it in mutual assaults and accidents. And the bases of art. 115 are enforceable reasoning: sentences with a “global” moral-damage figure and no breakdown are appealed and adjusted.
Arts. 116 and 117 CP
Direct respondents and insurers
Every criminal respondent is also civilly liable; with several respondents, the court fixes quotas, with solidarity within each class (authors, accomplices) and subsidiarity between classes. Insurers answer as direct civil respondents up to the policy limit: seating them in the criminal process accelerates collection. Equal quotas for unequal participations are challengeable, and solidarity allows internal recovery actions that we prepare for whoever overpays.
Art. 120 CP
Subsidiary respondents
In default of the convicted person answer, among others: media owners for offences committed in them, companies for their employees’ offences in the performance of their duties, vehicle owners for offences committed using them by authorised persons, and parents for the offences of children under their authority with fault in supervision. It is the real collection route against insolvent convicts, and it is fought in both directions.
In practice
The corporate subsidiary liability
It requires an offence “in the performance of obligations or services”: personal excesses disconnected from the task exclude it. We defend companies proving unforeseeable overreach and diligent control; as prosecution, we build it with the enterprise-risk theory that the case law expands.
Art. 121 CP
The Administration
The State and the administrations answer subsidiarily for damage caused by criminally liable officials in the exercise of their office, if the damage is a direct consequence of the functioning of the service. The claim must also be directed against the Administration from the investigation stage: arriving late loses it. In public health-care criminal negligence, it is the solvency route: we never forget it in the appearance.
Art. 127 CP
Ordinary confiscation
Every penalty for an intentional offence entails the loss of the effects, assets, means and instruments of the offence and of the gains, transformations included; confiscation by equivalent value applies when what was obtained does not appear. Third parties in good faith can be excluded: real owners not accused appear in the confiscation piece to save what is theirs. Mixed family vehicles and accounts demand early intervention: staying silent in the investigation is losing in the judgment.
Arts. 127 bis to 127 octies CP
Extended, non-conviction and third-party confiscation
Extended confiscation allows confiscating assets of unjustified origin in catalogue convictions (organisation, laundering, trafficking, corruption) upon indications of criminal provenance; non-conviction confiscation operates with deceased, absconded or non-imputable persons; and third-party confiscation reaches those who acquired knowing or having had to suspect. The autonomous procedure of art. 803 ter LECrim channels these claims.
In practice
The accounting of a lifetime
Extended confiscation is defended with the accounting of a lifetime: we reconstruct decades of lawful income with tax records, payrolls and deeds. The autonomous procedure of art. 803 ter allows fighting for the assets even without a criminal conviction of the owner: it is a lawsuit in itself demanding specialised defence, not an appendix.
