Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Corporate Criminal Liability pp 255–270Cite as

Societas Delinquere Potest? The Italian Solution

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ramella 1885, 960.

  2. 2.

    Alessandri 1984, 1 et seq., 107 et seq.

  3. 3.

    Romano 1995, 1036.

  4. 4.

    Coffee 1981, 401.

  5. 5.

    Romano 1995, 1036.

  6. 6.

    OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, November 21, 1997, in force February 15, 1999.

  7. 7.

    Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the Protection of the European Communities’ Financial Interests – Joint Declaration on Article 13(2) – Commission Declaration on Article 7, July 26, 1995, in force October 17, 2002, OJ No. C 316, November 27, 1995, 49.

  8. 8.

    Department of Justice (2000), para. 7.

  9. 9.

    Department of Justice (2001), para. 1.

  10. 10.

    Department of Justice (2000), para. 7.

  11. 11.

    Paliero 2008, 1516.

  12. 12.

    Department of Justice (2001), para. 1.1.

  13. 13.

    Kosko 1993.

  14. 14.

    Paliero 2001, 86.

  15. 15.

    Musco 2001, 8.

  16. 16.

    Musco 2001, 8.

  17. 17.

    De Simone 2002, 79.

  18. 18.

    De Vero 2001, 1167.

  19. 19.

    Corte di Cassazione, Sez. II, January 30, 2006, n. 3615, Jolly Mediterraneo.

  20. 20.

    For example, the statute of limitations in the decree is completely different from that applying to penal mechanisms; the sanctions called for in corporate cases (break-ups, mergers, transformations, etc.) are completely tied to the civil law on changes in the obligations of companies that are the object or subject of modifications.

  21. 21.

    See, e.g., the contributions by Deckert (France), Keulen/Gritter (the Netherlands), and Nanda (United States of America) (all in this volume).

  22. 22.

    Law of November 23, 2001, No 409.

  23. 23.

    Legislative Decree of April 11, 2002, No. 61.

  24. 24.

    Law of January 14, 2003, No. 7; Law of August 11, 2003, No. 228.

  25. 25.

    Law of April 18, 2005, No 62.

  26. 26.

    Law of January 9, 2006, No. 7.

  27. 27.

    Legislative Decree of November 11, 2007, No. 231.

  28. 28.

    Law of August 3, 2007, No. 123.

  29. 29.

    De Maglie 2002, 331; de Maglie 2001, 1350.

  30. 30.

    Department of Justice (2001), para. 3.2.

  31. 31.

    De Maglie 2002, 333; de Maglie 2001, 1351.

  32. 32.

    See Gobert/Mugnai 2002, 619 et seq.

  33. 33.

    De Maglie 2002, 356, 363.

  34. 34.

    Marinucci 2008, 1477 et seq.

  35. 35.

    See further Deckert (this volume).

  36. 36.

    De Maglie, 2002, 334.

  37. 37.

    Department of Justice (2001), para. 5.

  38. 38.

    For a recent description of these critiques, see, generally, Beale 2007, 1503 et seq.

  39. 39.

    Friedman 2000, 834, 848.

  40. 40.

    Friedman 2000, 847 et seq.

  41. 41.

    Friedman 2000, 848.

  42. 42.

    Friedman 2000, 852.

  43. 43.

    Friedman 2000, 854.

  44. 44.

    Friedman 2000, 855.

  45. 45.

    Friedman 2000, 858.

  46. 46.

    De Maglie 2005, 565 et seq.

References

  • Alessandri, A. (1984), Reati d’impresa e modelli sanzionatori, Milano.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beale, S.S. (2007), ‘Is Corporate Criminal Liability Unique?’ American Criminal Law Review 44, 1503.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Maglie, C. (2001), ‘Principi generali e criteri di attribuzione della responsabilitá’, Diritto penale e processo 11, 1348.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Maglie, C. (2002), L’etica e il mercato. La responsabilitá penale delle societá, Milano.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Maglie, C. (2005), ‘Models of Corporate Criminal Liability in Comparative Law’, Washington University Global Studies Law Review 4, 547.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Deckert, K. (2011), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability in France’, in this volume.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Justice (2000), Relazione al Progetto preliminare di riforma del codice penale – Parte generale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Justice (2001), Relazione ministeriale al Decreto Legislativo 8 giugno 2001, No. 231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, L. (2000), ‘In Defense of Corporate Criminal Liability’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 23, 833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J. and E. Mugnai (2002), ‘Coping with Corporate Criminality. Some lessons from Italy’, Criminal Law Review, 619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keulen, B.F. and E. Gritter (2011), ‘Corporate criminal liability in the Netherlands’, in this volume.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosko, B. (1993), Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marinucci, G. (2008), ‘Il diritto penale dell’impresa: il futuro è già cominciato’, Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 4, 1465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musco, E. (2001), ‘Le imprese a scuola di responsabilità tra pene pecuniarie e misure interdittive, Diritto & Giustizia 23, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nanda, V.P. (2011), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability in the United States: Is a New Approach Warranted?’, in this volume.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Ramella, A. (1885), La responsabilità penale e le associazioni, in: Trattato del Cogliolo, II, I, Milano.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano, M. (1995), ‘Societas delinquere non potest (Nel ricordo di Franco Bricola)’, Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 4, 1031.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Pavia School of Law, Pavia, Italy

    Cristina de Maglie (Full Professor of Criminal Law, Fellow of the Institute for Legal Research)

  2. University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Cristina de Maglie (Full Professor of Criminal Law, Fellow of the Institute for Legal Research)

Authors
  1. Cristina de Maglie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristina de Maglie .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Faculty of Law, University of Basel, Peter Merian-Weg 8, Basel, 4002, Switzerland

    Mark Pieth

  2. , Faculty of Law, University of Basel, Peter Merian-Weg 8, Basel, 4002, Switzerland

    Radha Ivory

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

de Maglie, C. (2011). Societas Delinquere Potest? The Italian Solution. In: Pieth, M., Ivory, R. (eds) Corporate Criminal Liability. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0674-3_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation