Decree 231, the reform draft already aims to thin the list
To be retained only in cases of combating economic crime
Key points
Revising the sanctioning system, restoring to it systematicity and coherence that are to some extent dispersed today, also as a result of the stratification over time of a plurality of too heterogeneous predicate offences. The draft law reforming decree 231 prepared by the working group set up at the Ministry of Justice now handed over to Minister Carlo Nordio intervenes on the subject with a delegation to the Government.
In particular, the aim is to circumscribe the catalogue of predicate offences to those most relevant to corporate crime. The need, in compliance with European and international obligations, is to return somewhat to the origins, given that the initial vocation has been lost over time and now it is not easy for companies to identify the perimeter of criminal risk and to prepare the related risk management activities through the adoption of organisational models.
Critical issues
On the other hand, even the reference to precise international obligations is in many ways misleading: the inclusion among predicate offences was not always in execution of specific constraints that left no margin of discretion to the legislator. For instance, there are cases in which the additions to the list of predicate offences have exceeded the minimum adaptation requirements imposed by supranational standards (the proverbial case of the mutilation of genital organs, inserted by Law No. 7 of 9 January 2006, as part of the commitments undertaken through the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action).
The reform of sanctions
Linked to the topic of predicate offences is also the draft reform of the sanctions system. The text prepared by the working group, in fact, is concerned, also in this case by means of a delegation of powers, to remedy one of the effects of the 'disorder' in the list of offences, the fragmentation of the sanctions system, in which the edictal frames of the pecuniary measures do not adequately reflect the different seriousness of the offences. An example of this is the offence of bribery between private individuals, which is sanctioned by Article 25-ter(1)(s-bis) of Legislative Decree 231 to a greater extent than the (more serious) bribery of a public official under Article 319 of the Criminal Code.
In some cases, among other things, the regulations in force assimilate within the same legal framework crimes characterised by a different criminal offence. This is the case of the offences of culpable environmental disaster and culpable environmental pollution.
