Advertisement

Societas Delinquere Potest? The Italian Solution

  • Cristina de MaglieEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 9)

Abstract

Only in 2001 did the Italian legislator introduce a model for the direct responsibility of collective entities into its legal system. In fact, Italian law has always been shy and reluctant in recognizing the principle of corporate criminal liability. Various and deep-seated reasons have justified for long the attachment to the Roman law principle societas delinquere non potest. Legislative Decree No. 231 of June 8, 2001 represents a breaking off with this tradition even though it sets a “tertium genus” responsibility regime that combines the essential aspects of criminal and administrative law systems by introducing a truly complex and complete microsystem of rules on corporate liability. This chapter outlines the substantive features of the Italian system of direct liability of collective entities (i.e., criteria for ascribing actus reus and mens rea and system of sanctions), as well as the criminal justice policy implications of this relevant reform against corporate crime.

Keywords

Legal Person Criminal Liability Corporate Crime Compliance Program Criminal Justice Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alessandri, A. (1984), Reati d’impresa e modelli sanzionatori, Milano.Google Scholar
  2. Beale, S.S. (2007), ‘Is Corporate Criminal Liability Unique?’ American Criminal Law Review 44, 1503.Google Scholar
  3. Coffee, J.C. (1981), ‘“No Soul to Damn: No Body to Kick”: An Unscandalized Inquiry into the Problem of Corporate Punishment’, Michigan Law Review 79, 386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Maglie, C. (2001), ‘Principi generali e criteri di attribuzione della responsabilitá’, Diritto penale e processo 11, 1348.Google Scholar
  5. De Maglie, C. (2002), L’etica e il mercato. La responsabilitá penale delle societá, Milano.Google Scholar
  6. De Maglie, C. (2005), ‘Models of Corporate Criminal Liability in Comparative Law’, Washington University Global Studies Law Review 4, 547.Google Scholar
  7. De Simone, G. (2002), ‘I profili sostanziali della responsabilità c.d. amministrativa degli enti: la “parte generale” e la “parte speciale” del d. lgs. 8 giugno 2001 n. 231’, in: G. Garuti (ed.), Responsabilità degli enti per illeciti amministrativi dipendenti da reato, Padua, 57.Google Scholar
  8. De Vero, G. (2001), ‘Struttura e natura giuridica dell’illecito di ente collettivo dipendente da reato. Luci ed ombre nell’attuazione della delega legislativa’, Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 4, 1126.Google Scholar
  9. Deckert, K. (2011), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability in France’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  10. Department of Justice (2000), Relazione al Progetto preliminare di riforma del codice penale – Parte generale.Google Scholar
  11. Department of Justice (2001), Relazione ministeriale al Decreto Legislativo 8 giugno 2001, No. 231.Google Scholar
  12. Friedman, L. (2000), ‘In Defense of Corporate Criminal Liability’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 23, 833.Google Scholar
  13. Gobert, J. and E. Mugnai (2002), ‘Coping with Corporate Criminality. Some lessons from Italy’, Criminal Law Review, 619.Google Scholar
  14. Keulen, B.F. and E. Gritter (2011), ‘Corporate criminal liability in the Netherlands’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  15. Kosko, B. (1993), Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Marinucci, G. (2008), ‘Il diritto penale dell’impresa: il futuro è già cominciato’, Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 4, 1465.Google Scholar
  17. Musco, E. (2001), ‘Le imprese a scuola di responsabilità tra pene pecuniarie e misure interdittive, Diritto & Giustizia 23, 8.Google Scholar
  18. Nanda, V.P. (2011), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability in the United States: Is a New Approach Warranted?’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  19. Paliero, C.E. (2001), ‘Il d.lgs. 8 giugno 2001, n. 231: da ora in poi, societas delinquere (et puniri) potest’, Corriere giuridico 7, 845.Google Scholar
  20. Paliero, C.E. (2008), ‘La società punita: del come, del perchè, e del per cosa’, Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 4, 1516.Google Scholar
  21. Ramella, A. (1885), La responsabilità penale e le associazioni, in: Trattato del Cogliolo, II, I, Milano.Google Scholar
  22. Romano, M. (1995), ‘Societas delinquere non potest (Nel ricordo di Franco Bricola)’, Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 4, 1031.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Pavia School of LawPaviaItaly
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations