Legislative Decree no. 231/2001 – in compliance with the principles set forth in EU legislation on the prevention of corporate crimes and the assessment of companies’ liability – has determined the liability of companies and legal entities for those crimes committed by subjects representing or acting on behalf of the company or entity.
Companies shall therefore be considered liable for crimes committed by (i) individuals vested with powers of representation, control, direction or management of the company, or (ii) individuals subject to the authority or control of the above-mentioned subjects, when the unlawful conduct has been carried out in the interest of or to the benefit of the company concerned.
Companies shall not be considered liable pursuant to Leg. Decree no. 231/2001 if the following conditions exist:
a) The individual(s) who committed the crime acted in their own exclusive interest or in the interest of third parties not related to the company;
b) The company provides sufficient evidence that the company’s management has adopted and implemented an organizational model and an ethical code in order to prevent the commission of crimes by the company’s representatives, managers and employees submitted to control of the former. The company must also demonstrate that a body has been established within the company for the sole task of controlling the function of and compliance with the organizational model and ethical code (the body in charge of control).
The liability of the company (so called administrative liability of the company) for crimes committed by managers, employees, etc., provided by Leg. Decree no. 231/2001, has an autonomous nature with respect to that of the individual materially responsible for the criminal offense. Even if defined by Decree no. 231 as an "administrative liability," the most prominent doctrine considers said liability as having a criminal nature, partly because it is derived from the commission of criminal offenses, and partly because the evaluation of said liability rests with criminal courts in criminal proceedings.
The types of crimes for which the company is liable are described in articles 24-25 quarter of the Decree.
- Fraud crimes against the State or public bodies or entities;
- Corruption crimes;
- Falsification crimes involving money, credit cards and stamp duties;
- Corporate crimes provided by the Civil Code amended by Leg. Decree no. 62/2001 (article 25 ter*): said category includes crimes concerning false communications, false information in the company’s balance sheets or accounting documents, false registrations, etc.
- Acts of terrorism
The company’s administrative liability pursuant to Leg. Decree no. 231/2001 is regulated with different types of sanctions, including pecuniary sanctions in amounts proportional to the capital of the company, and various prohibitions/revocations (including prohibition of performance of the business, revocation/suspension of licenses, financings, etc.).
The company’s liability shall be ascertained and the applicable sanctions shall be determined by the criminal court competent for the relevant crimes committed. The court may also apply temporary cautionary measures pending criminal proceedings when there are sufficient elements confirming prima facie the company’s liability.
In order to not be considered liable pursuant to Leg. Decree no. 231/2001, the company shall provide evidence that (i) the crimes had been committed only in the interest of or to the benefit of the material author and not of the company itself, (ii) it has adopted and implemented an ethical code for all levels of employees and executives as well as an effective organizational model to prevent crimes and (iii) it has set up a body in charge of control of compliance with said model. The burden of proof is therefore extremely onerous for the concerned company.
The criminal court shall be qualified to evaluate whether said conditions have been fulfilled in practice.
In light of said legislation, it has become a crucial priority for all companies and entities affected by Decree no. 231/2001 to set up a valid and efficient system of control and adopt an ethical code and organizational model with a view to enhancing an effective compliance system to prevent the commission of crimes.
For more information pleasse contact the author at email@example.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Where standard printed terms and conditions of a contract are inconsistent with its special terms and conditions, the special conditions will prevail so as not to defeat the main object and intention of the contract.
The Common Reporting Standard is, like FATCA before it (a regime established by US legislation, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act), an information exchange regime aimed at international tax transparency.
An assignment of rights under a contract is normally restricted to the benefit of the contract. Where a party wishes to transfer both the benefit and burden of the contract this generally needs to be done by way of a novation.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).