Destruction of illegal things and devices to contrast the counterfeiting

The movement of goods illegal and counterfeit in the circuit of the economy and the labor market, has put in place of criminal policy internal supranational and a primary need of confiscation and destruction in relation to safety issues transnational linked to all forms of counterfeiting, piracy agr...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Dr.Sc. Mario Antinucci
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Felix-Verlag 2016-01-01
Series:ILIRIA International Review
Subjects:
Online Access:http://iliriapublications.org/index.php/iir/article/view/266
id doaj-840ca311f10c4717837bca161aaf2d17
record_format Article
spelling doaj-840ca311f10c4717837bca161aaf2d172020-11-25T02:20:53ZengFelix-VerlagILIRIA International Review2192-70812365-85922016-01-016211714010.21113/iir.v6i2.266229Destruction of illegal things and devices to contrast the counterfeitingDr.Sc. Mario Antinucci0Department of Legal, Philosophical and Economics Studies, University Sapienza of RomeThe movement of goods illegal and counterfeit in the circuit of the economy and the labor market, has put in place of criminal policy internal supranational and a primary need of confiscation and destruction in relation to safety issues transnational linked to all forms of counterfeiting, piracy agro-food to fraud in industrial brands of high fashion et similia: from here the major node of the procedure of destruction of goods illegal and counterfeit subject to seizure and confiscation and respect of guarantees communities of the criminal process, especially in the light of the amendment of art. 260, co. 3 bis and ter, c.p.p. with the d.l. 23-5-2008, n. 92 and subsequent amendments (so-called Safety Package). In line with the criminal policy of ''security'', in l. 23-7-2009, n. 99, the so-called Decree Development, between the ''darrangements for the development and the internationalization of enterprises, as well as in the field of energy'' and  wanted to redesign, with analytical provisions of particular edge, the perimeter of the criminal-law protection ''Dei property rights industrial'' through the introduction of four new hypothesis of offenses of counterfeiting (artt. 473, 474, 474 b and c, 517 b and c, c.p.) and related hypothesis of obligatory confiscation (art. 474 bis and 517 ter c.p.), with implications concerning the regime differentiated penitentiary (art. 4 bis, co. 1 ter, ord. penit.) in relation to the cases of belonging to criminal association aimed to commit new offenses referred to in articles 473-474 c.p. (arts. 416 bis, 6º Co., c.p. and 51, co. 3 bis, c.p.p.), as well as the regulatory body containing the so-called ''responsability of administrative entities'', within the meaning of art. 19, d.lg. 8-6-2001, n. 231.http://iliriapublications.org/index.php/iir/article/view/266DestructionConfiscationIndustrial PropertyCustoms CodeUE Guarantees
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Dr.Sc. Mario Antinucci
spellingShingle Dr.Sc. Mario Antinucci
Destruction of illegal things and devices to contrast the counterfeiting
ILIRIA International Review
Destruction
Confiscation
Industrial Property
Customs Code
UE Guarantees
author_facet Dr.Sc. Mario Antinucci
author_sort Dr.Sc. Mario Antinucci
title Destruction of illegal things and devices to contrast the counterfeiting
title_short Destruction of illegal things and devices to contrast the counterfeiting
title_full Destruction of illegal things and devices to contrast the counterfeiting
title_fullStr Destruction of illegal things and devices to contrast the counterfeiting
title_full_unstemmed Destruction of illegal things and devices to contrast the counterfeiting
title_sort destruction of illegal things and devices to contrast the counterfeiting
publisher Felix-Verlag
series ILIRIA International Review
issn 2192-7081
2365-8592
publishDate 2016-01-01
description The movement of goods illegal and counterfeit in the circuit of the economy and the labor market, has put in place of criminal policy internal supranational and a primary need of confiscation and destruction in relation to safety issues transnational linked to all forms of counterfeiting, piracy agro-food to fraud in industrial brands of high fashion et similia: from here the major node of the procedure of destruction of goods illegal and counterfeit subject to seizure and confiscation and respect of guarantees communities of the criminal process, especially in the light of the amendment of art. 260, co. 3 bis and ter, c.p.p. with the d.l. 23-5-2008, n. 92 and subsequent amendments (so-called Safety Package). In line with the criminal policy of ''security'', in l. 23-7-2009, n. 99, the so-called Decree Development, between the ''darrangements for the development and the internationalization of enterprises, as well as in the field of energy'' and  wanted to redesign, with analytical provisions of particular edge, the perimeter of the criminal-law protection ''Dei property rights industrial'' through the introduction of four new hypothesis of offenses of counterfeiting (artt. 473, 474, 474 b and c, 517 b and c, c.p.) and related hypothesis of obligatory confiscation (art. 474 bis and 517 ter c.p.), with implications concerning the regime differentiated penitentiary (art. 4 bis, co. 1 ter, ord. penit.) in relation to the cases of belonging to criminal association aimed to commit new offenses referred to in articles 473-474 c.p. (arts. 416 bis, 6º Co., c.p. and 51, co. 3 bis, c.p.p.), as well as the regulatory body containing the so-called ''responsability of administrative entities'', within the meaning of art. 19, d.lg. 8-6-2001, n. 231.
topic Destruction
Confiscation
Industrial Property
Customs Code
UE Guarantees
url http://iliriapublications.org/index.php/iir/article/view/266
work_keys_str_mv AT drscmarioantinucci destructionofillegalthingsanddevicestocontrastthecounterfeiting
_version_ 1724869162241622016