Edited by Giuseppe Miceli

Creativity and innovation are two very different concepts, yet they have always intertwined, finding many areas of convergence, so much so that some—less attentive or perhaps less sensitive—have confused them.
For several years I have been observing the art world and I am concerned about how digital innovation, which finds expression in intangible assets – in some cases – risks suffocating creativity and polluting the art market.
The advent of the so-called cryptocurrencies has marked the beginning of a process of decentralization, with respect to the control of financial and banking authorities, just as that of crypto-art risks generating disintermediation, excluding
from the art market to galleries and art dealers. The so-called NFTs are exchanged from seller to buyer, directly on online platforms dedicated to this schizophrenic market, without the need for
of an expert eye (which, objectively, would be wasted) and without any kind of consultancy (let alone fiscal or tax consultancy).
The lack of regulatory intervention has already led to a complete decline: the dematerialization process is now perfect, and disintermediation in the market is now complete. Works of art are now virtually invisible and are even sold at auction for tens of thousands of euros.
Meanwhile, there's no sign of any new rules! So, as an art connoisseur and a lawyer who served for nearly fifteen years as a tax police officer in the Special Units of the Guardia di Finanza, I can't help but wonder, at least about the correct application of the current regulations. So the question I ask myself is whether the sale of an invisible work of art risks constituting the offense provided for and punished by Article 8 of Legislative Decree 74/2000. In other words, I wonder whether the sale of an invisible work of art constitutes a nonexistent transaction and, therefore, whether the invoice issued should be considered false, which—if necessary—will trigger the penalties established by tax law, as well as repercussions in terms of money laundering.

An alarm that I personally raised a few years ago and that I reiterated from the stage of the Ariston Theatre in Sanremo, on the occasion of the World Protection Forum™ (WPF), promoted by Genséric Cantournet and Angela Pietrantoni, founders of KELONY®, the first Risk–Rating Agency in the world.
As Official Speaker of the most important global summit dedicated to the protection of human beings in all their aspects, I also reiterated the need and urgency to give concrete application to my project for the traceability of works
of art to finally be able to enhance and protect the artistic and cultural heritage that belongs to all of us.
If I were an art world expert, I would make a critical assessment that would still seem trivial. However, since I am a lawyer specializing in tax law and anti-money laundering legislation, I will simply limit myself to questioning whether such conduct could – possibly – constitute the crime under Article 8 of Legislative Decree 74/2000, i.e., the crime of issuing invoices or other documents for non-existent transactions, resulting in money laundering.