Fondo patrimoniale exposed to supervisory fines imposed on a bank director

By judgment no. 26690, filed on 12 October 2026 after the public hearing of 6 October, the Third Civil Division of the Corte di cassazione (Italian Court of Cassation) upheld two charges registered by the collection agent (agente della riscossione) under art. 77, paragraph 1, of Presidential Decree (d.P.R.) 602/1973 (from 2027, art. 178, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree (d.lgs.) 33/2025) over a property placed in a fondo patrimoniale (Italian family asset fund), as security for administrative fines imposed by Consob and the Bank of Italy on the former chairman of the board of directors of a credit institution for negligent breaches of supervisory duties. The Court starts from art. 170 of the Civil Code, which bars enforcement against the assets of the fund and their fruits for debts that the creditor knew had been incurred for purposes unrelated to the needs of the family, and reaffirms that what matters is not whether the source of the obligation is contractual, statutory or non-contractual, but the functional link between the obligation and the needs of the household, understood broadly in line with the course of family life agreed by the spouses under arts. 143 and 144 of the Civil Code. It derives the following principle of law: a supervisory fine imposed on a person managing a bank in a senior position is a debt pertaining to the needs of the family where the remunerated office was the primary or essential source of the income that sustained the family’s standard of living.

The reasoning rests on a test of causal regularity: for a person who takes on senior functions in a bank, the risk of proceedings for failures of supervision is a foreseeable consequence of the office and is offset by the remuneration, so that the liability cannot be separated from the income stream that supported the family, and there is no need to show any specific benefit derived from the conduct for which the fines were imposed. The debtor who relies on the restriction bears the burden of strictly proving that the debt is unrelated to the family’s needs; the punitive nature of the fine, negligence and the absence of intent are not enough. There are two limits. Whether art. 170 can be raised against a charge registered by the collection agent was not examined because the point had become final within the proceedings (giudicato interno), and the question remains open. The principle is also framed for bank officers and presupposes a factual finding on the source of the family’s income; the Court distinguishes it from order no. 35836/2022, which had ruled out the link where nothing had been proved or alleged on whether the debt related to the household’s maintenance. In our view the reasoning extends naturally to company directors and to professionals whose fees steadily support their family, while the position of a debtor who proves different and prevailing sources of maintenance remains defensible.

Summary note by the CommercialistiAvvocati network, based on specialised legal and practice sources. The text does not reproduce original contributions and does not constitute professional advice.