ITALY Law and Practice Contributed by: Alessandro Pistochini, Luca Moglia, Giovanni Bellissimo and Giulia Barattini, Pistochini Avvocati Studio Legale
caused, as well as the defendant’s behaviour after the commission of the offence. 4.3 Plea Agreements, Co-Operation, Self- Disclosure and Leniency The closest equivalent to the Anglo-American plea bargain is the patteggiamento procedure, governed by Articles 444–448 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It allows the defendant and prosecutor to request a court-approved sentence, provided it does not exceed five years’ imprisonment (or consists of a fine, alone or combined with imprisonment). If accepted, the court issues a conviction without trial, and the penalty is reduced by up to one-third. Crucially, patteggiamen- to is not a form of admission of criminal liability: the defendant does not enter a guilty plea in the common- law sense. The court must still verify that no grounds for acquittal exist and that the agreed-upon penalty is appropriate, but the conviction follows by agreement rather than through a contested trial. Self-disclosure may also be relevant. In economic and corporate crime, voluntary reporting or substantial co- operation can mitigate liability. In cases of corruption, defendants who mitigate harm, provide evidence, or expose accomplices may see their penalties reduced by up to two-thirds (Article 323-bis). More strikingly, anyone reporting a corrupt act before learning of an investigation, and within four months of the conduct, may obtain full exemption (Article 323-ter). Co-operation with the authorities is further recognised under Article 62-bis, which provides general mitigat - ing circumstances, and under special statutes that reward assistance in uncovering offenders, proceeds, or criminal groups. Additional leniency includes conditional suspension of sentence, probationary programmes ( messa alla prova ), or replacement of imprisonment with commu - nity sanctions, particularly for first-time offenders and less serious crimes. 4.4 Whistle-Blower Protection Italy has recently introduced a comprehensive whistle- blower regime through Legislative Decree No 24/2023, implementing the EU Directive and expanding earlier rules. The regime extends across both the public and
private sectors, covering breaches of national or EU law, including corruption, financial crime, and corpo - rate misconduct. Whistle-blowers enjoy strong safeguards: any retali - atory measure is void, the employer must prove its independence from the disclosure, and confidentiality of identity is mandatory, with sanctions for violations. Unlike other jurisdictions, no monetary rewards are offered; the incentive lies in legal protections, such as job security, confidentiality, and immunity from liability, except for limited exceptions (eg, state secrets, medi - cal secrecy). Companies with at least 50 employees, as well as all entities subject to Legislative Decree 231/2001, must establish secure internal reporting channels, either managed internally or outsourced, ensuring confi - dentiality, data protection, and anonymous reporting. They must also establish clear follow-up procedures and provide staff with adequate training. In paral - lel, whistle-blowers may report to ANAC via its fully anonymous platform, or, in certain cases, directly to judicial authorities. 4.5 Cross-Border Defence Strategies When white-collar matters take on a cross-border dimension, defence strategies must contend with the full range of international and EU co-operation instru - ments that enable evidence, suspects and proceed - ings to move across jurisdictions. In the EU, the key innovation is the European Pub - lic Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which is competent in Italy for crimes against EU finances, such as cross- border VAT fraud or the misuse of funds. EPPO pro - ceedings may involve parallel investigations in several member states, with foreign material often admissible in Italian courts. Beyond the EU, Italy relies on mutual legal assistance treaties, Council of Europe conventions and bilateral agreements. Evidence gathered abroad is gener - ally admissible if it is compliant with the law of the requested state, although the defence may contest it where Italian guarantees are lacking. Scrutinising requests and invoking principles like speciality in extradition is therefore crucial.
133 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook