ITALY Law and Practice Contributed by: Alessandro Pistochini, Luca Moglia, Giovanni Bellissimo and Giulia Barattini, Pistochini Avvocati Studio Legale
nent or continuing offences, from the date of commis - sion of the last act in furtherance of the same criminal intent. Law No 134/2021 (Cartabia Reform) suspends limita - tion from first-instance judgment and sets maximum durations: two years (extendable by one) for appeal, one year (extendable by six months) for the Supreme Court, starting 90 days after the filing deadline (Article 344-bis CPP). Under Decree No 231/2001, corporate liability is time- barred after five years. 1.4 Extraterritorial Reach and Cross-Border Co-Operation Italian jurisdiction over white-collar crime is, as a rule, territorial (Article 3 ICC). Limited extraterritorial juris - diction exists under Articles 7–8 et seq ICC (most notably for political offences) and, in certain cases, where the offender is present in Italy and statutory conditions are met. The prevailing model is co-operative rather than extra - territorial: enforcement is achieved through mutual legal assistance and EU instruments rather than uni - lateral projection of jurisdiction. Extradition (governed by Article 13 ICC and Articles 662–671 ICCP) may be sought for prosecution or for enforcement. Italian law distinguishes between active extradition (initiated by the Ministry of Justice or the public prosecutor) and passive extradition (incoming requests), which are subject to judicial scrutiny and governmental authorisation. Core safeguards apply: double criminality, speciality and ne bis in idem. Refusal grounds include, inter alia, political offences, the personal status of the requested person, and mili - tary or fiscal offences. Assistance can occur through letters rogatory, either treaty-based or under the ICCP, for actions like serv - ing documents and obtaining evidence, beyond just extradition. Italy also allows the transfer of criminal proceedings (Article 746-bis ICCP) at the pre-trial stage to avoid ne bis in idem and to favour the forum most closely connected to the alleged conduct.
Within the European Union, co-operation is routine and streamlined. The European Arrest Warrant accel - erates surrender; the European Investigation Order enables judge-led evidence gathering; and mutual recognition of criminal judgments facilitates cross- border enforcement. The European Public Prosecu - tor’s Office investigates and prosecutes offences affecting the EU’s financial interests through European Delegated Prosecutors, while Eurojust coordinates complex transnational cases alongside the EPPO. Operationally, Italian authorities, most prominently the Guardia di Finanza , work through INTERPOL, Europol (including Analysis Projects), SIRENE bureaux, Police and Customs Co-operation Centres, OLAF, and the FIU network. Asset Recovery Offices assist with trac - ing and freezing proceeds, while the Financial Security Committee contributes to AML/CFT policy. Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 on e-Evidence introduces European Production and Preservation Orders, enabling the col - lection of data from service providers across borders. Potential “blocking statutes” on international mutual assistance may arise from applicable treaties or EU law, and commonly concern double criminality, the prohibition of double jeopardy (ne bis in idem), and safeguards against measures that would contravene fundamental constitutional principles. 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability Corporate Criminal Liability Legislative Decree No 231/2001 establishes the con - cept of corporate criminal liability for legal entities. The regime is hybrid: criminal in its trigger – since it arises only upon the commission of a predicate criminal offence – yet administrative in form, as the sanctions (including fines and disqualification measures) are for - mally defined as “administrative”. Liability is derivative of a natural person’s offence and arises where: • a predicate offence expressly listed in the Decree has been committed; • the offender acted on behalf of the entity, whether in a senior management role or as a subordinate; and • the offence was committed in the interests or for the benefit of the entity.
121 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook