Multinational groups represent a relevant issue in the area of corporate criminal liability. The common idea of the group of companies as a ‘criminogenic’ factor can be the ground for criminalising the group itself or the parentcompany. As to multinational corporations, the Italian legislative decree 231/2001 on the (quasi-)criminal liability of corporations does not cover the case of a foreign company misbehaving in Italy. A supranational harmonisation of the rules on corporate criminal liability could help in solving the matter.
This paper examines the recent reform of art. 157, par. 6 of Italian Criminal Code enacted by the Law n. 68 of 2015, which doubles up the limitation period for any of the Environmental Crimes established in Title VI bis. Its approach focuses on a sound analysis of legal, political and systematic meanings and implications of the new provision, as well as on to what extent there are plausible reasons to justify the reform. What emerges raises serious doubts concerning the usefulness of the current regime, in the light of scope of the reform and the main features of the new environmental crimes. It is questioned as well the consistency of the new provisions with the broader area of environmental protection under criminal law, also in the perspective of the scrutiny on reasonableness by the Constitutional Court.
The article is focused on the profound innovations to the corporate liability ,that have been introduced by Italian Law n.68/2015 related to the environmental crimes.The corporate liability, which has been introduced by the Decree Legislative n.121/2011 that have inserted the art. 25 undecies into the Decree Legislative n. 231/2001, has an implemented list of enviromental crimes. The analysis, from one side, will focus on the critical aspect of this matter, in particular with reference to the new regulation related to the cancellation of fines, and to no reference to the systems of enviromental management. From the other side, it concerns to the possible future scenario of the regulamentation, which still needs further rules in order to be fully in compliance with the principles of legal certainty.
As for Criminal Law concerning individuals, tensions affect the principle of legality also in the matter of corporate criminal liability, due to interpretations aimed at expanding the catalogue of predicate offences beyond the boundaries defined by the legislator. The problem is addressed from the environmental criminal law perspective, as up until now, this field has represented the first and main testing ground for the principle of legality in the "231 system". Starting from the Ilva case, this contribution goes back over the controversial relationship between environmental crimes and the crime of association, highlighting how art. 24-ter of the decree – also in the light of certain developments related to transnational organized crime – risks turning into a passe-partout provision, with consequences on the actual possibility of building the compliance program and on the corporate “culpability” itself. The relevance of the crime of association in this matter is confirmed by the introduction of the environmental aggravating circumstance for crimes of association in the new title VI-bis of the Criminal Code (Art. 452-octies c.p.). Such introduction calls for further reflections, as the provision shows aspects of irrationality related to sanctions for the collective entities.
Today the world food market is dominated by the food multinationals and characterized by corporate concentration, globalization and financialization. This situation makes it necessary that commercial companies be held liable for the commission of food crimes. With regard to the structure of corporate criminal responsibility, the paradigm based on the lack of internal organization appears to be the most suitable; moreover it is consistent with the inspiring philosophy of EU food regulation, according to which the relevant risks must be managed by companies in a preventive, systematic and documented manner. The poor legal certainty of the compliance program requirements can be addressed both through careful legislative reform and by applying, in practice, the guidelines emerging from European law, international soft law and private standardization actors, which have a long tradition in the field of food safety management systems. The recent Italian draft law on agri-food crimes proposed by the Caselli Commission is an appreciable effort to “codify” a standard organizational model for food enterprises. However the enhancement of hetero-standardization in this crucial sector shows several inconsistencies and it could raise a new wave of interpretative problems.
The paper deals with the matter of corporate liability (d. lgs. 231/2001) in the field of journalistic activity. Once examined the issues linked to the criteria set in order to ascribe the offense to the journalist, it is underlined the question of compatibility between the freedom of information and the preventive “compliance” that establishes the guiltiness of the body.
The paper is based on the work of the research group led by the Department of Legal Studies of the University of Florence on the topic of "Criminal Justice and Journalistic Activities" and it is aimed at summarizing the main issues related to the many interests involved and their possible balancing. Based on the assumption that it is necessary to overcome the contradiction between the existing, but totally ineffective, laws and a situation of pain for many interests, especially private ones, attempts are made to identify some possible lines in order to reform or to rethink the system.
Article 25-quater was introduced into the system outlined by Legislative Decree No. 231/2001 through Law No. 7 of 14 January 2003, to implement supranational obligations, which required the recognition of forms of liability even for legal persons in the broader framework of the fight against terrorism. The fact that this provision has never been applied – in spite of the current escalation of the terrorist threat on a global scale – raises questions about its function and effectiveness for the purposes of the “Decree 231". Shifting from the acknowledgement of supranational sources of reference, this article focuses on the major issues of interpretation raised by the provision, aiming at highlighting the friction with the principle of legality and with the objective criterion (the “interest” or the “benefit”) for the attribution of liability, showing in the meantime the significant impact on the construction of compliance programs.
The article discusses the recent evolution in AngloAmerican systems of criminal justice of pre-trial diversion, which has become the main prosecution tool to deal with corporate criminality. The article also reflects on problems related to the general framework of corporate liability in a comparative perspective.