Italian criminal law classifies offences as felonies or misdemeanours: felonies entail imprisonment, life imprisonment or fines; misdemeanours involve arrest or monetary sanctions.

A criminal offence requires:

• typical conduct – a concrete human act with legal disvalue;
• unlawfulness – absence of justification; and
• culpability – intent (dolus) or negligence (culpa), with intent (awareness and volition) as the standard for felonies.

All three are constitutive elements; lacking one excludes criminal liability.

Motive is not necessary unless legally specified, though it may affect sentencing and assessment of dangerousness.

Criminal liability for attempted offences is recognised for felonies (Articles 56–57 ICC), but not misdemeanours and requires acts that are suitable and unequivocally directed towards committing the offence, which fails solely due to extraneous factors.

Italian financial offences are governed by the presumption of innocence: the public prosecutor bears the burden of proof and any reasonable doubt requires acquittal. Rebuttable presumptions and logical inferences are permissible only if reasonable and consistent with defence rights. Thus, in self-laundering cases (Article 648-ter.1 ICC), the illicit origin of assets may be inferred from suspicious transactions; in money laundering cases (Article 648-bis ICC), from the possession or transfer of large unexplained sums; and, in tax cases, from unjustified bank transactions or the use of false invoices. However, these circumstances constitute evidence rather than proof: the prosecution must establish every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the defendant must be allowed to rebut the inferences.

Offences ordinarily become time-barred after the maximum statutory prison term, subject to minimum periods of six years for felonies and four for misdemeanours (Article 157 ICC). Suspension and interruption are governed by Articles 159-161; interruption generally extends the period by no more than one quarter. Article 93 of Legislative Decree No 173/2024 increases the limitation period for tax offences under Articles 74-81 by one third. Following the Cartabia Reform, the limitation period ends with the first-instance judgment, while Article 344-bis ICCP limits the duration of appeals and Supreme Court proceedings. Corporate liability under Legislative Decree No 231/2001 is time-barred after five years, subject to Article 22.

Italian jurisdiction over white-collar crime is, as a rule, territorial (Article 3 ICC). Limited extraterritorial jurisdiction exists under Articles 7–8 et seq ICC, most notably for political offences and, in certain cases, when the offender is present in Italy and statutory conditions are met.

The prevailing model is cooperative rather than extraterritorial: enforcement is achieved through mutual legal assistance and EU instruments rather than unilateral projection of jurisdiction.

Extradition (governed by Article 13 ICC and Articles 662–671 ICCP) may be sought for prosecution or for enforcement. Italian law distinguishes active extradition (initiated by the Ministry of Justice or the public prosecutor) from passive extradition (incoming requests), which is subject to judicial scrutiny and governmental authorisation.

Core safeguards include: double criminality, speciality and ne bis in idem. Refusal grounds include, inter alia, political offences, the requested person’s personal status and military or fiscal offences. Recent Supreme Court case law has clarified the interaction between this territorial framework and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO): the optional ground for refusal of surrender based on territorial connection (Article 18-bis, Law 69/2005, implementing the territoriality principle under Article 6 ICC) cannot be invoked where cross-jurisdictional coordination between Member States over the same facts has already been resolved by the EPPO assuming coordination of the investigation, with the consequent allocation of competences among Member States and possible exercise of the right of evocation under Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939.

Beyond extradition, assistance proceeds through letters rogatory (treaty-based and, alternatively, under the ICCP) for acts such as service and evidence-taking. Italy also allows the transfer of criminal proceedings (Article 746-bis ICCP) at the pre-trial stage to avoid ne bis in idem and to favour the forum most closely connected to the alleged conduct.

Within the European Union, cooperation is routine and streamlined. The European Arrest Warrant accelerates surrender; the European Investigation Order enables judge-led evidence gathering; and mutual recognition of criminal judgments facilitates cross-border enforcement. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office investigates and prosecutes offences affecting the EU’s financial interests through European Delegated Prosecutors, while Eurojust coordinates complex transnational cases alongside the EPPO.

Operationally, Italian authorities – most prominently the Guardia di Finanza – co-operate through INTERPOL, Europol, SIRENE bureaux, Police and Customs Co-operation Centres, OLAF and the FIU network. Asset Recovery Offices assist with tracing and freezing proceeds.

Since 18 August 2026, Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 on e-Evidence has applied directly, allowing judicial authorities to issue European Production and Preservation Orders to service providers in other Member States, subject to the Regulation’s safeguards and review mechanisms. Italy has now completed its domestic implementing framework: a legislative decree adopted under the delegation in Article 19 of the 2024 European Delegation Law (Law No 91/2025) identifies the competent authorities for issuing, validating and transmitting such orders, the authorities competent for receipt and execution and the procedures for reviewing addressees’ objections, approved by the Council of Ministers on 11 December 2025 and introducing, among other things, a new Article 263-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure (data preservation order).

Potential “blocking statutes” on international mutual assistance may arise from applicable treaties or EU law and commonly concern double criminality, the prohibition of double jeopardy/ne bis in idem and safeguards against measures that would contravene fundamental constitutional principles.

Corporate Criminal Liability

Legislative Decree No 231/2001 establishes the so-called corporate criminal liability of legal entities. The regime is hybrid: it is criminal in its trigger, as it arises only upon the commission of a predicate criminal offence, but administrative in form. The sanctions, including fines and disqualification measures, are formally defined as “administrative”.

Liability is derivative of a natural person’s offence and arises where:

• a predicate offence expressly listed in the Decree has been committed;
• the offender acted on behalf of the entity, whether in a senior management role or as a subordinate; and
• the offence was committed in the interest or for the benefit of the entity.

In 2026, the catalogue of predicate offences under Legislative Decree No 231/2001 was notably expanded:

• Legislative Decree No 211/2025 added Article 25-octies 2 on EU restrictive measures, including turnover-based fines;
• Legislative Decree No 81/2026 strengthened Article 25-undecies on environmental offences; and
• Legislative Decree No 160/2026, effective from 30 September 2026, adds Article 25-vicies for specified AI-related offences.

Group Company Liability

As for the potential involvement of other legal entities, the extension of liability under Legislative Decree No 231/2001 to the parent companies for offences perpetrated within the subsidiary requires that two cumulative conditions be met:

the offence must be committed by two or more individuals acting in concert, each of whom is linked to a different legal entity (for example, an offence committed jointly by a director of the subsidiary and a director of the parent company) or by a single individual holding a position in both companies (eg, someone serving as a director in both the parent and the subsidiary);

the offence must be committed not only in the interest or to the advantage of the subsidiary, but also in the interest or to the advantage of the parent company, which is formally unrelated to the offence. Such interest or advantage must be concretely established, meaning that the parent company must derive an actual or potential benefit, even if not necessarily of a financial nature.

Mergers and Acquisitions

For corporate liability under Legislative Decree No 231/2001, a distinction must be drawn between mergers and acquisitions. In a merger (including by incorporation), Article 29 provides that the surviving entity is liable for offences attributable to the entities party to the merger. By contrast, in an acquisition, the purchaser does not assume liability under the Decree for offences committed within the target prior to completion.

Penalty assessment follows Articles 132–133 ICC: judges apply discretion within statutory limits, considering offence gravity and offender’s conduct. Recidivism increases penalties (Article 99 ICC). Similar principles apply to corporate liability (Articles 11, 14, 20, Decree 231/2001).

Plea bargaining under Article 444 ICCP allows the defendant and the public prosecutor to request a court-approved sentence which, after the reduction of up to one third, does not exceed five years’ imprisonment, alone or combined with a fine. The judge must verify that no grounds for immediate acquittal exist and that the legal classification, circumstances and agreed sentence are correct. The agreement may also address ancillary penalties and confiscation within the limits laid down by law. For prison sentences under four years, judges may impose alternatives that promote rehabilitation: semi-custody, home detention, community service, fines.

White-collar crimes often involve legal entities, to which Legislative Decree No 231/2001 applies directly: sentencing may consider corporate culture, compliance programs, cooperation and remediation as mitigating factors.

Article 17 exempts from disqualifying sanctions if, before trial, the entity:

• fully compensates and removes effects;
• adopts a compliance model;
• makes illicit profit available for confiscation.

Legal Grounds and Competent Courts

Under Article 185 of the ICC, any offence that causes harm creates an obligation on the offender to provide compensation. Procedurally, an injured party may seek redress by participating in the criminal proceedings as a civil party, under Article 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or by bringing a civil action for damages before the civil courts.

Class Actions

Class actions are relatively new in the Italian legal system and various forms of collective action introduced in Italy (eg, Articles 840-bis et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure) are not specifically aimed at securing compensation for victims of white-collar offences, but rather address, more generally, cases of unlawful conduct (not necessarily of a criminal nature) that affect a large number of people (eg, unfair commercial practices).

In Italy, the main authorities addressing white-collar crimes (eg, tax fraud, corruption, money laundering, corporate offences) are the following:

• Public Prosecutor’s Office (initiates criminal proceedings, coordinates investigations and prosecutes in Court);
• Guardia di Finanza (judicial and tax police supporting prosecutors in investigating financial, corporate and public administration crimes);
• EPPO (competent over offences harming EU financial interests); and
• administrative authorities, often involved in matters of white-collar crime, including CONSOB (financial markets and market abuse supervision), Bank of Italy (banking supervision), IVASS (supervision of insurance markets), ANAC (National Anti-Corruption Authority), UIF (Financial Intelligence Unit).

Italian law provides complementary criminal, civil and administrative remedies in economic crime cases.

Civil liability may arise alongside criminal sanctions, allowing injured parties – including public administrations – to claim pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages via standalone civil actions or as civil parties in criminal proceedings (Articles 74 et seq. ICCP).

For certain offences such as market abuse, tax violations, accounting irregularities and unfair commercial practices, administrative sanctions (monetary fines and disqualifications) are imposed by sectoral regulators:

• CONSOB;
• AGCM (competition); and
• ANAC (public procurement).

Criminal and administrative proceedings may coexist, raising ne bis in idem concerns. In Grande Stevens v Italy, the ECtHR scrutinised such dual proceedings under the ne bis in idem principle and found CONSOB sanctions for market abuse to be criminal in nature. However, in A. and B. v Norway, the Court upheld dual-track systems when criminal and administrative proceedings are sufficiently closed in substance and time.

Italy has no specialised judges or courts for white-collar crimes (Article 102 Constitution) and ensures judicial independence, preventing political interference in the application of the law, given the separation of powers and the judiciary’s autonomy.

In Italy, the Public Prosecutor (Pubblico Ministero) – a judicial officer independent of the Government and bound only by law – opens and directs white-collar investigations.

The rules governing the initiation and conduct of investigations are laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure and its implementing provisions.

A notitia criminis relating to white-collar matters may reach the prosecutor through multiple channels: oral or written complaints by anyone aware of an offence (stating the essential facts), mandatory reports by public officials where ex officio crimes come to light in or because of their duties and institutional referrals from supervisory and enforcement authorities (eg, Court of Auditors, Revenue Agency, CONSOB, Bank of Italy, etc).

Consistent with Article 112 of the Constitution (mandatory prosecution), receipt of a sufficiently specific and credible notitia criminis triggers the Public Prosecutor’s duty to enter the matter in the register of crime reports under Article 335 ICCP, recording the facts, time and place and, if known, the suspect.

From that moment, the Prosecutor directs the investigation and may delegate the judicial police to carry out investigative acts (document collection, witness interviews, technical assessments and so on).

In Italy, investigative authorities have broad powers to detect white-collar crime during preliminary investigations, governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure and special laws.

The Public Prosecutor (either directly or through the judicial police) may compel production of corporate documents, including sensitive or secret ones, if evidentiary relevance is proven and secrecy claims are unfounded (Article 256 ICCP).

With legal prerequisites, the Prosecutor may, by reasoned decree order searches and seizures of corporate or private premises, including forensic imaging, subject to judicial oversight (Articles 247 ff. CCP).

Executives, employees or third parties may be interrogated as witnesses or suspects; witnesses must testify unless they invoke self-incrimination and suspects have rights to silence and counsel.

Seizure of digital devices is considered highly intrusive and must satisfy relevance, necessity and proportionality requirements. Bill No C.1822, which would introduce a specific statutory framework for seizing devices and data, remains pending before Parliament. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has strengthened judicial safeguards: judgments Nos 543/2026 and 15894/2026 require the measure to be appropriately delimited and reject indiscriminate, mass acquisition of data unrelated to the investigation.

Due to digital asset use in economic crimes, some Prosecutors have traced, frozen and seized cryptocurrencies and virtual instruments as criminal proceeds or tools; some Supreme Court rulings reversed orders due to legal classification issues.

In Italy, judicial police may, in principle, employ atypical investigative tools (including AI and advanced digital technologies) provided their use pursues legitimate procedural aims and respects fundamental rights.

For some time, investigations have used so-called Trojan malware: surreptitiously implanted into devices, it enables remote data extraction or ambient interception. Decree-Law No 161/2020 regulates its use for proceedings after 31 August 2020: judicial authorisation for the use of such a tool must be reasoned, establishing the existence of serious indications, the indispensability of the measure and its temporal and spatial limitations.

Regarding the use of blockchain-based investigative techniques and crypto-assets, Bank of Italy’s Occasional Paper No 893 links decentralised finance to money laundering and terrorist financing risks. It concludes that the technological architecture underpinning decentralised systems lacks the capacity to replace the active role of financial intermediaries in AML compliance, given the public visibility of smart contract code.

The general framework is set by:

• Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the AI Act);
• Law No 132/2025; and
• (from 30 September 2026) Legislative Decree No 160/2026.

Legislative Decree No 160/2026 specifically regulates the use of AI by law-enforcement authorities. It permits targeted real-time remote biometric identification only in defined cases and, in criminal investigations, subject to prior authorisation by the judge for preliminary investigations, except in urgent procedures requiring prompt judicial validation. The authorisation must delimit the persons, area and period concerned, which may not exceed 15 days at a time.

AI outputs obtained outside the permitted cases or without the required authorisation are unusable and the related data must be deleted, unless they constitute the corpus delicti. Digital forensics, big-data analysis and financial monitoring must also comply with constitutional guarantees, the GDPR and national data-protection rules.

In Italy, internal investigations are not generally mandatory; however, they can be crucial for corporate self-protection by identifying perpetrators and demonstrating governance and a prompt response, thus aiding cooperation with authorities and possibly mitigating liability under Articles 6 and 7 of Legislative Decree 231/2001.

When properly conducted via independent audits and documentary collection respecting the Code of Criminal Procedure and data protection laws, such inquiries are favoured by prosecutors and courts.

Furthermore, under Legislative Decrees 231/2007 and 231/2001, financial institutions and intermediaries must implement internal controls and investigate suspicious transactions and adopt organisational models to prevent offences, including money laundering.

In any case, private companies have no obligation to report internal findings to the authorities. However, public or quasi-public entities may have reporting duties, as public officials must report offences and are required to notify the competent authority if any offence prosecutable ex officio is identified.

Multiple laws regulate corporate internal investigations, notably:

• GDPR (Regulation 2016/679);
• Italian Data Protection Code;
• Legislative Decree 24/2023 on whistleblowing; and
• Workers’ Statute (Law 300/1970).

The latter restricts employee surveillance and inquiries into personal beliefs or unrelated matters.

If conducted under a lawyer’s direction within a criminal law framework, such investigations fall under Articles 327-bis and 391-bis et seq. of the ICCP, allowing the defence (among other things) to obtain documents from public authorities. These activities require no prior judicial authorisation and may be carried out preventively upon mandate. Moreover, the lawyer benefits from legal professional privilege (Article 200 of ICCP) and all defence investigative acts are protected by professional confidentiality (Article 327-bis et seq ICCP).

Under the Italian Constitution, criminal prosecution is mandatory. Upon completion of the investigation, the Public Prosecutor must bring charges where the available evidence provides a sufficient basis for the case to proceed to trial. Conversely, where no offence has been committed or the evidence is insufficient to support the charges, the Public Prosecutor must apply for dismissal. Under Legislative Decree No 231/2001, prosecution occurs if senior personnel or those under their direction commit offences in the entity’s interest or advantage. In such cases, recent case law holds that the Public Prosecutor has no discretion to commence proceedings against the entity. For further details, see 2.2 Initiating an Investigation.

Italian law lacks instruments fully analogous to deferred or non-prosecution agreements but provides alternative procedural mechanisms to resolve criminal proceedings without trial, primarily plea bargaining (for more, see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties).

Other relevant mechanisms include:

• summary penalty proceedings by decree: immediate conviction upon prosecutor’s request without trial, limited to cases where both the prosecutor and the judge consider that only a pecuniary penalty should be imposed and no security measure is required;
• suspension of proceedings with probation: available for offences within certain statutory sentencing thresholds, subject to a rehabilitation programme that includes remedying the harmful consequences of the offence and, where possible, compensating the victim;
• oblation: voluntary payment extinguishing the offence (as of right for misdemeanours punishable solely by fine and at court’s discretion for offences punishable by detention or a fine; and
• reparatory conduct: extinguishes offences started by private complaint that may be withdrawn, upon full restitution or compensation and removal of harm.

Moreover, under Legislative Decree No 231/2001, post-offence remediation organisational model improvements, co-operation and compensation may reduce sanctions and, where all Article 17 conditions are met before trial, prevent disqualification sanctions. Entities may also use the special plea-bargaining procedure under Article 63. For further details, see 1.6. Sentencing and Penalties.

There are several categories of offences that fall within the scope of economic criminal law, such as:

• corporate crimes (see 3.6 Financial Record-Keeping);
• environmental crimes (see 3.14 ESG-Related Offences);
• tax offences (see 3.5 Tax Fraud);
• banking offences (see 3.4 Insider Dealing, Market Abuse and Criminal Banking Law); and
• offences against the Public Administration (see 3.2 Bribery, Influence Peddling and Related Offences).

These categories of offences are typically included within the notion of “economic criminal law” or “corporate criminal law.” However, many “ordinary” offences may also be committed in the context of business activity, such as fraud or money laundering.

Public Sector Bribery

Under Article 318 ICC, a public official who accepts or even agrees to accept an undue advantage in connection with their functions commits a criminal offence, regardless of whether the act itself is unlawful; acceptance alone suffices. The penalty is three to eight years’ imprisonment.

Article 319 increases the sanction to six to ten years when the bribe is tied to the omission or delay of an official act or to the performance of an act contrary to duty. If judicial activity is involved, Article 319-ter provides for six to twelve years, rising to twenty where corruption results in an unjust conviction.

Article 319-quarter introduces the separate offence of “inducement” (induzione indebita a dare o promettere utilità), in which a public official exploits their position to pressure a private party into offering a benefit. The official faces six to ten years and six months’ imprisonment, while the private party may be punished with up to three years or four if EU financial interests are affected.

Liability of the Bribe-Giver and Attempted Bribery

Italian law makes clear that the giver is as blameworthy as the taker. Article 321 provides that the payer or promisor is liable to the same penalty as the official. Even unconsummated bribery is criminalised. Under Article 322, the mere offer of an advantage which is not accepted or the solicitation of a bribe which is not taken up, attracts a penalty reduced by one third.

Trading in Influence

Article 346-bis criminalises the conduct of anyone who exploits existing relationships with a public official to obtain benefits, either to remunerate that official or to carry out illicit mediation. The offence carries a penalty of between one year and six months and four years and six months’ imprisonment, with aggravation where judicial activity is affected or where the intermediary is himself an official.

Foreign Public Officials

Under Article 322-bis, the bribery, inducement, instigation and liability provisions extend to European Union officials, members of international organisations or courts and foreign State officials exercising functions comparable to those of Italian public officials. Italy therefore expressly criminalises the bribery of foreign public officials, in line with international anti-corruption conventions.

Private-to-Private Bribery

Article 2635 of the Civil Code targets directors, managers, auditors, liquidators and certain employees who request or receive advantages to act in breach of their duties and equally punishes those who offer or promise the advantage. The sanction is imprisonment from one to three years, increased where listed companies are involved. For subordinate staff, the maximum sentence is one year and six months. Confiscation of the illicit benefit is mandatory.

Furthermore, Article 2635-bis addresses instigation to private bribery. Even where the offer or solicitation is not accepted, the offence remains, subject to a penalty reduced by one third.

Ancillary Sanctions and Corporate Liability

Article 322-ter of the ICC requires confiscation of the price or profit of the offence or equivalent value where direct confiscation is not possible. It also provides for disqualifying measures, including incapacity to contract with the public administration.

In addition to individual liability, entities may be held responsible under Legislative Decree 231/2001 if the offence was committed in their interest or to their advantage. Companies may face substantial monetary fines, as well as interdictive measures such as bans on contracting with public authorities, suspension of activities or exclusion from public subsidies. The catalogue of predicate offences includes both public-sector corruption and private-to-private bribery.

Bribery and influence-peddling prevention rules differ for public and private entities.

Public Sector

Law 190/2012 requires a three-year Anti-Corruption and Transparency Plan and appointment of a responsible officer. The plan must assess risks, introduce safeguards, ensure transparency, training and reporting. Failure is not a crime but can trigger administrative, disciplinary and accounting liability under ANAC oversight. Public officials must report offences (Articles 361–362 ICC), while Decree 24/2023 obliges administrations to maintain whistle-blowing channels, with ANAC fines for breaches.

Private Sector

Legislative Decree 231/2001 makes the “231 Model” the only defence against liability for bribery or influence-peddling. It must identify risks, set controls, empower a supervisory body and include whistle-blowing systems. Failing to adopt a model is not an offence, but it leaves companies exposed to sanctions. Decree 24/2023 separately requires whistle-blowing channels and sectors covered by AML Decree 231/2007 must file suspicious transaction reports, with administrative fines for non-compliance.

The offences are partly criminal, partly administrative and aim at safeguarding the integrity of markets, investors’ trust and the stability of the financial system.

Insider Dealing

The key provision is Article 184 of the Consolidated Law on Finance (TUF, Legislative Decree 58/1998), which punishes anyone who, by virtue of their position (issuer, shareholder, director, auditor, employee or other professional role), uses inside information to trade in related financial instruments. It also covers unlawful disclosure or recommendations based on inside information. Penalties range from two to twelve years of imprisonment and fines between EUR20,000 and EUR3 million, which may rise to three times or to ten times the illicit profit depending on the seriousness of the offence.

Market Manipulation

Closely related is Article 185 TUF, which prohibits market manipulation, including disseminating false information, carrying out sham transactions or using other artifices capable of producing a significant alteration in the price of financial instruments. The manipulation can occur through trading practices (“trade-based manipulation”) or through information (such as false or misleading news).

The sanction is imprisonment for two to twelve years and a fine of EUR20,000 to EUR5 million, which may be multiplied by up to three times or up to ten times the illicit profit.

Criminal Banking Law Offences

Italian law also punishes unlawful banking and financial activities. The main offences deriving from the Consolidated Law on Banking (TUB, Legislative Decree 385/1993) are as follows.

• Illicit collection of savings from the public: Article 130 TUB criminalises anyone who, without authorisation, offers or carries out the acquisition of funds from the public with an obligation to repay. The penalty is imprisonment for six months to three years and a fine ranging from EUR12,911 to EUR51,645.
• Illicit banking activity: Under Article 131 TUB, anyone who carries out banking activity (ie, collection of savings from the public and the granting of credit) without authorisation is subject to imprisonment from one to eight years and a fine from EUR4,130 to EUR10,329.
• Illicit financial intermediation: Article 132 TUB criminalises the conduct of financial intermediation activities without authorisation. This includes activities reserved to licensed intermediaries under Italian law (such as granting loans or other forms of financial services). The sanction is imprisonment from six months to four years and a fine from EUR2,065 to EUR10,329.

Ancillary Sanctions and Corporate Liability

For both insider dealing and market manipulation, confiscation of profit (or equivalent value) is mandatory and disqualification from managerial roles in financial companies may apply. Under Legislative Decree 231/2001, companies may be liable if the offence benefits them, facing heavy financial penalties and interdictive measures such as suspension of activity or bans on public contracts.

Tax offences are currently governed by Legislative Decree No 74/2000.

The main offences are:

• fraudulent returns using false invoices (Article 2) – declaring fictitious costs based on invoices for non-existent transactions (four to eight years’ imprisonment);
• fraudulent returns through other artifices (Article 3) – using simulated transactions, false documents or other deceptive means above the statutory thresholds (three to eight years);
• inaccurate returns (Article 4) – understating income or claiming fictitious deductions above the statutory thresholds (two years to four years and six months);
• failure to file a return (Article 5) – intentionally omitting a tax or withholding-agent return where the relevant tax or withholding exceeds EUR50,000 (two to five years);
• issuing false invoices (Article 8) – issuing documents for non-existent transactions to enable another person’s tax evasion (four to eight years);
• concealment or destruction of records (Article 10) – concealing or destroying accounting documents to prevent reconstruction of income or turnover (three to seven years);
• failure to pay certified withholding taxes above EUR150,000 (Article 10-bis) – six months to two years;
• failure to pay VAT above EUR250,000 (Article 10-ter) – six months to two years;
• unlawful set-off (Article 10-quater) – using non-due credits above EUR50,000 (six months to two years); and
• fraudulent evasion of tax collection (Article 11) – fraudulent acts intended to frustrate collection of more than EUR50,000 (six months to four years).

Legislative Decree No 74/2000 applies until 31 December 2026. From 1 January 2027, it will be replaced by the corresponding provisions of Legislative Decree No 173/2024.

The prosecution must prove the conduct, applicable thresholds and required intent beyond reasonable doubt. Payment of the tax debt may result in non-punishability or mitigation under the statutory conditions.

Taxpayers must file the prescribed returns, while intermediaries and professionals are subject to specific disclosure duties. Italy has no separate offence of failure to prevent tax evasion. However, an entity may be liable under Article 25-quinquiesdecies of Legislative Decree No 231/2001 where a listed tax offence is committed in its interest or to its advantage; an effective compliance model may exclude or mitigate liability.

The main criminal offence related to corporate accounting is “false corporate reporting”/”false accounting” (Article 2621 of the Civil Code).

This offence punishes the conduct of directors, general managers, statutory auditors and liquidators who, to obtain an undue profit for themselves or others:

• knowingly report in financial statements (or other corporate communications directed to shareholders or the public) material facts that are untrue; or
• omit material facts whose disclosure is required by law regarding the economic, asset or financial situation of the company or the group to which it belongs, in a way that is concretely likely to mislead others.

The applicable penalty is imprisonment from one to five years.

Article 2622 of the Civil Code provides for a similar offence but specifically concerns false accounting committed within listed companies, for which it provides a higher penalty: imprisonment from three to eight years.

Antitrust law is mainly governed by Law No 287/1990, which provides administrative sanctions for anti-competitive conduct, but does not establish criminal offences such as cartels. Certain criminal provisions are instead set forth by the ICC, which punishes particularly serious behaviours affecting free competition. The main offences include:

• unlawful competition with threats or violence (Article 513-bis ICC): engaging in competitive acts through violence or threats (the penalty is imprisonment from two to six years);
• bid-rigging in public auctions (Article 353 ICC): preventing or distorting bidding in public or private tenders by threats, collusion or fraud (the penalty is imprisonment from six months to five years and a fine up to EUR1,032); and
• distortion of the procedure for selecting a contracting party (Article 353-bis ICC): interfering with tender procedures through threats, collusion or fraud (the penalty is imprisonment from six months to five years and a fine up to EUR1,032).

Italian consumer criminal law targets offences that punish trade fraud and protect consumers from marketplace deception, supported by administrative rules that ensure fairness and product safety.

On the criminal side, the most relevant provision is Article 515 of the ICC, which punishes the sale of goods that differ in origin, quality or quantity from what was promised, with penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to EUR2,065. Moreover, Article 517 addresses the marketing of industrial products with false or misleading signs (such as brands, marks or labels)) that deceive consumers as to origin, quality or genuineness, punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR20,000. The common thread in these provisions is the element of deception, designed to preserve consumer trust and the integrity of commercial transactions.

On the administrative side, the Consumer Code (Codice del Consumo) reinforces this framework. Articles 20–27 prohibit misleading or aggressive practices, empowering the Competition Authority (AGCM) to impose substantial fines. Following Articles 102-113 (recently recast by Legislative Decree No 78/2026), economic operators must place only safe products on the market, assess risks, ensure traceability and co-operate on warnings and recalls. Article 112 provides criminal sanctions for the most serious breaches and administrative sanctions for other failures, without prejudice to more serious offences under the Criminal Code.

The main offences related to cybercrimes, computer fraud and the protection of company secrets are as follows.

• Unauthorised access to a computer or telecommunications system (Article 615-ter ICC): gaining access to a protected system without authority or remaining in it against the express or implied wishes of the person entitled to exclude others. The basic offence carries up to three years’ imprisonment, with higher penalties in aggravated cases.
• Unlawful interception or disruption of computer or telematic communications (Article 617-quater ICC): fraudulently intercepting, obstructing or interrupting communications within or between systems. The basic offence carries 18 months to five years’ imprisonment.
• Computer fraud (Article 640-ter ICC): manipulating a system or unlawfully interfering with its data to obtain an unjust profit at another’s expense. The basic offence carries six months to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of EUR51–1,032, with higher penalties in aggravated cases.
• Disclosure of scientific or trade secrets (Article 623 ICC): disclosing or using, for one’s own or another’s benefit, secrets learned through one’s office or profession. The offence carries up to two years’ imprisonment; the penalty is increased if trade secrets are disclosed using computer systems.

Customs sanctions are governed by Legislative Decree 141/2024, which criminalises smuggling and fraudulent declarations, such as failing to lodge paperwork or misstatements about quality, quantity origin or value. The basic penalty is a fine equal to 100%–200% of the duties evaded, with imprisonment only in aggravated cases: three to five years if the offender is armed, acts in a group, links the conduct to other felonies, joins a contraband association or where a duty component exceeds EUR100,000; up to three years if it exceeds EUR50,000. Authorities handle lesser infringements administratively through fines and confiscation.

Alongside the customs regime, trade sanctions apply to embargoed goods and sensitive technologies. Law 185/1990 covers the export of military equipment, while Legislative Decree No 221/2017 implements the EU framework on dual-use items. In both cases, the core offence is exporting, supplying or brokering goods without the required authorisation or in breach of the relevant regulations. These are criminal offences that carry imprisonment, heavy fines often linked to the value of the goods and confiscation.

Legislative Decree No 211/2025, effective in January 2026, implemented Directive (EU) 2024/1226 and introduced Articles 275-bis to 275-quinquies ICC. Intentional breaches of EU restrictive measures, including prohibited trade, transactions, services, circumvention and failure to freeze assets, are criminal offences subject to thresholds and exceptions; negligent and administrative infringements are also covered. New Article 25-octies 2 of Legislative Decree No 231/2001 makes entities liable, with fines up to 5% of worldwide turnover or EUR40 million where turnover cannot be determined, plus disqualification sanctions. Whistle-blower protection was extended to related reports.

The crime of concealment (ricettazione) under Article 648 ICC arises when a person, to obtain a profit, purchases, receives or conceals money or property derived from any offence or otherwise facilitates its acquisition, receipt or concealment, while knowing its illicit origin. The predicate offence may be any offence capable of producing unlawful proceeds. The perpetrator of the predicate offence cannot be convicted of receiving the same proceeds, although subsequent conduct may amount to self-laundering. The ordinary penalty is imprisonment from two to eight years and a fine from EUR516 to EUR10,329, subject to statutory aggravating and mitigating provisions. Conduct aimed at disguising or reinvesting illicit assets may instead fall under money laundering or self-laundering (see 3.13 Money Laundering).

Anyone who contributes to the commission of a corporate offence can be held liable through the general rule on participation in crime set out in Article 110 of the ICC (concorso di persone nel reato). The contribution may take the form of material cooperation (direct involvement in the act) or moral participation, such as instigation, encouragement or agreement that strengthens others’ decision to commit the offence. The offence requires:

• the commission of a crime;
• a contribution by another person that is causally relevant to its realisation, either by action or omission; and
• knowledge and intent to participate in the unlawful plan.

The rule provides that all participants receive the same penalty as the principal offender, unless their role is minor, in which case the court may reduce the sentence (Article 114).

The principal money-laundering offences are as follows.

• Money laundering (Article 648-bis ICC): a person who did not participate in the predicate offence substitutes, transfers or otherwise deals with its proceeds to hinder identification of their illicit origin. Where the proceeds derive from a felony, the penalty is four to 12 years’ imprisonment and a EUR5,000–25,000 fine.
• Self-laundering (Article 648-ter.1 ICC): a person who committed or participated in the predicate offence uses, substitutes or transfers its proceeds in economic, financial, business or speculative activities to concretely hinder identification of their illicit origin. Where the proceeds derive from a felony, the penalty is two to eight years’ imprisonment and a EUR5,000–25,000 fine.

Legislative Decree No 231/2007 imposes preventive obligations on financial intermediaries, professionals and other covered entities. Article 55 also creates criminal offences, including falsifying or using false customer due diligence information concerning the client, beneficial owner, representative, relationship, service or transaction. This carries six months to three years’ imprisonment and a EUR10,000–30,000 fine.

Criminal offences are dealt with by the courts; administrative sanctions are imposed by the MEF or the competent sectoral supervisory authority, depending on the violation.

Environmental offences appear in both the ICC and the Environmental Code (Legislative Decree 152/2006). The ICC punishes conduct that causes serious harm to air, soil, water or ecosystems. Environmental pollution can lead to imprisonment of two to six years and a fine of up to EUR100,000, while causing an environmental disaster, that is, irreversible or very extensive damage, can result in five to fifteen years in prison. Environmental Code contains more specific rules on waste and emissions: carrying out waste management without the required authorisations organising illegal waste trafficking or discharging pollutants into rivers or the atmosphere are all criminal offences, punishable with sanctions that range from a few months to several years of imprisonment, depending on how dangerous the conduct is.

On the social and governance side, the ICC sanctions slavery, trafficking in persons and forced labour (Article 601) with terms of imprisonment from eight to twenty years, while Article 603-bis punishes labour exploitation through unlawful recruitment (caporalato) with one to six years of imprisonment, increased where violence, threats or minors are involved.

The most serious ESG violations, including environmental pollution, environmental disaster, human trafficking and slavery, may also trigger corporate liability under Legislative Decree 231/2001, thereby engaging the direct liability of companies that benefit from them.

Law No 132/2025 introduced a general aggravating circumstance for offences committed through AI systems as an insidious means to obstruct defence or aggravate consequences. It also introduced Article 612-quater ICC, which punishes the harmful dissemination of AI-generated or altered content with one to five years’ imprisonment. Existing offences and specific aggravating provisions continue to apply to AI-enabled fraud and market manipulation.

Legislative Decree No 160/2026, published on 15 September and due to enter into force on 30 September 2026, introduces Article 437-bis of the Italian Criminal Code. It applies to high-risk AI systems, including in financial or commercial contexts, but does not criminalise the mere use of AI, algorithmic trading or automated decision-making. Failure to adopt required technical safety or human-oversight measures is punishable if it endangers life or public or individual physical safety (one to five years’ imprisonment) or State security (two to eight years). If a first-paragraph offence is committed through gross negligence, the penalty is reduced by one third to one sixth. Unlawful alteration of a high-risk AI system carries two to six years’ imprisonment, rising to three to ten years where State security is endangered. A professional user who intentionally fails to adopt human-oversight measures faces the penalties applicable to the corresponding omission, provided the specified danger results.

New Article 25-vicies of Legislative Decree No 231/2001 makes entities liable for Articles 437-bis and 612-quater ICC, with fines up to 1,000 quotas and disqualification sanctions.

Crypto-assets were comprehensively regulated for the first time with Legislative Decree No 129 of 5 September 2024, implementing the EU Regulation on Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCAR, Regulation (EU) 2023/1114). The decree introduced one specific criminal offence (Article 30) and several administrative offences.

Before this, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation had already classified certain crypto-assets (particularly cryptocurrencies) as “financial products” (eg, shares or bonds), thus subjecting them to the Consolidated Law on Finance and related offences.

Under Legislative Decree No 129/2024, the unauthorised marketing of crypto-assets may constitute the offence under Article 30, which criminalises anyone who, without the required licence:

• offers to the public asset-referenced tokens or applies for their admission to trading;
• provides crypto-asset services under the Regulation;
• issues e-money tokens; or
• offers to the public e-money tokens or applies for their admission to trading.

The penalty is imprisonment from six months to four years and a fine of up to EUR10,329.

Crypto-assets may also be the subject of ordinary criminal offences where their constituent elements are established.

Crypto-assets may be subject to seizure and confiscation where they constitute proceeds or instrumentalities of crime under the applicable criminal and preventive-measures rules. In July 2026, the Italian Government approved a preliminary legislative decree to implement Directive (EU) 2024/1260. The proposed measures include specific procedures for securing seized crypto-assets and, where technically possible, their private keys.

Common Defences

The most common defence strategies can be divided into two categories: on the one hand, the “objective” defence, which seeks to have the court recognise that no offence was committed; and, on the other hand, the “subjective” defence, which aims to persuade the court that, even if an offence was committed, liability should not fall on the defendant.

The “objective” defence can in turn take different forms:

• a technical defence (eg, demonstrating that a certain threshold of pollution required to establish an environmental crime was not reached);
• a factual defence (eg, in tax crime proceedings, proving that invoices deemed false by the prosecutor’s office are in fact genuine); or
• a legal defence (eg, arguing that the defendant did not commit the offence of unauthorised financial activity because his consultancy activity did not meet the requirement of being directed to the “public”).

The “subjective” defence, instead, may consist in attributing responsibility for the offence to someone else (eg, the CEO of a large company attributing responsibility for a serious workplace accident to the plant manager of the relevant production site) or in excluding any personal involvement in the commission of the offence (eg, a non-executive director defending himself by proving his absence from the board meeting in which the approval of a false financial statement was resolved).

Compliance Programmes

Under Italian law (Legislative Decree No 231/2001), companies may avoid corporate liability for certain white-collar offences if they can demonstrate that, before the offence, they adopted and effectively implemented an organisational and management model (“Modello 231”) designed to prevent that type of misconduct. This defence applies only to entities and only to offences covered by the Decree (eg, corruption, corporate crimes, market abuse, money laundering, tax offences); for individuals, compliance programmes have no exonerating effect and serve at most as evidence of a lack of negligence or intent.

The legal provision that best embodies the principle de minimis non curat lex is Article 131-bis of the ICC (“Exclusion of punishability for particular triviality of the act”). This provision establishes that, for minor offences (punishable by a custodial sentence not exceeding two years at the minimum), punishability is excluded when the harm caused is of particular triviality and the conduct is not habitual. The triviality of the harm is assessed by reference to the manner in which the offence was committed, the insignificance of the harm or danger caused and the defendant’s behaviour after committing the offence.

The closest equivalent to the Anglo-American plea bargain is the patteggiamento procedure, governed by Articles 444–448 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It allows the defendant and prosecutor to request a court-approved sentence, provided it does not exceed five years’ imprisonment (or consists of a fine, alone or combined with imprisonment). If accepted, the court issues a conviction without trial and the penalty is reduced by up to one third. Crucially, patteggiamento is not a form of admission of criminal liability: the defendant does not enter a guilty plea in the common-law sense. The court must still check that no grounds for acquittal exist and that the agreed penalty is appropriate, but the conviction follows by agreement rather than by contested trial.

Self-disclosure may also be relevant. In economic and corporate crime, voluntary reporting or substantial cooperation can mitigate liability. In corruption, defendants who mitigate harm, provide evidence or expose accomplices may see penalties reduced by up to two-thirds (Article 323-bis). More strikingly, anyone reporting a corrupt act before learning of an investigation and within four months of the conduct, may obtain full exemption (Article 323-ter).

Article 62-bis further recognises co-operation with the authorities as a mitigating circumstance and special statutes reward assistance in uncovering offenders, proceeds or criminal groups.

Additional leniency includes conditional suspension of sentence, probationary programmes (messa alla prova) or replacement of imprisonment with community sanctions, particularly for first-time offenders and less serious crimes.

Italy’s whistle-blower regime is governed by Legislative Decree No 24/2023, implementing Directive (EU) 2019/1937. It covers specified breaches of national and EU law affecting the public interest or the integrity of a public administration or private entity, including corruption, financial crime and corporate misconduct. In January 2026, Legislative Decree No 211/2025 expressly extended its scope to reports concerning violations of EU restrictive measures.

Whistle-blowers enjoy strong safeguards: any retaliatory measure is void, the employer must prove it acted independently of the disclosure and identity confidentiality is mandatory, with sanctions for violations. Unlike other jurisdictions, no monetary rewards are offered; the incentive lies in legal protections such as job security, confidentiality and immunity from liability, except in limited circumstances (eg, state secrets, medical secrecy).

Companies with at least fifty employees and all entities under Legislative Decree 231/2001, must establish secure internal reporting channels (managed internally or outsourced) ensuring confidentiality, data protection and anonymous reporting. They must also adopt clear follow-up procedures and train staff. In parallel, whistle-blowers may report to ANAC via its fully anonymous platform or, in certain cases, directly to judicial authorities.

ANAC’s Guidelines on internal reporting channels, approved by Resolution No 478 of 26 November 2025, became a central operational reference in 2026.

The Guidelines address channel governance, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, outsourced management, follow-up and data protection and should be reflected in internal procedures and organisational models under Legislative Decree No 231/2001.

When white-collar matters take on a cross-border dimension, defence strategies must contend with the full range of international and EU co-operation instruments that enable evidence, suspects and proceedings to move across jurisdictions.

In the EU, the key innovation is the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), competent in Italy for crimes against EU finances, such as cross-border VAT fraud or misuse of funds. EPPO proceedings may involve parallel investigations in several Member States, with foreign material often admissible in Italian courts.

A significant development is the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 on electronic evidence from 18 August 2026. Its European Production and Preservation Orders allow authorities to seek data directly from service providers offering services in the EU, including where the provider is established in another Member State. This may require defence counsel to examine an order issued in one jurisdiction and data obtained through a provider in another. Counsel should scrutinise the order’s scope and legal basis, the handling of privileged material and personal data and the remedies available under the Regulation and applicable national law. Any challenge to the subsequent use of the evidence must be assessed in the proceedings concerned. Beyond the EU, Italy relies on mutual legal assistance treaties, Council of Europe conventions and bilateral agreements. Evidence gathered abroad is generally admissible if compliant with the law of the requested state, albeit the defence may contest it where Italian guarantees are lacking. Scrutinising requests and invoking principles like speciality in extradition is therefore crucial.

As to co-ordination of defence, no formal pan-European mechanism exists. In practice, companies and individuals facing parallel investigations will instruct teams in each jurisdiction and seek to harmonise strategy across borders. Italian law allows the use of material disclosed abroad to mount a defence, but jurisdictions must align their strategies to avoid inconsistent positions.

However, recognised limits exist on cross-border co-operation. Requests must respect Italian constitutional guarantees, including the right to a fair trial and the prohibition of double jeopardy (ne bis in idem). EU law reinforces this: a final judgment in another Member State bars fresh proceedings in Italy on the same facts. Data protection rules (GDPR) also apply and evidence obtained in breach of privacy or defence rights may, depending on the circumstances, be excluded.

Over the next year, developments in Italian white-collar crime will likely be driven primarily by the implementation and enforcement of recently enacted reforms, rather than further comprehensive legislative change.

One possible, although highly uncertain, development is a reform of Legislative Decree No 231/2001. In January 2026, a technical committee established by the Ministry of Justice submitted a report and draft legislation proposing to clarify the elements of corporate liability, recognise organisational fault as an element to be proved and strengthen incentives for remediation. However, no government bill has followed and a separate parliamentary proposal has been withdrawn. Whether and when the reform will proceed therefore remains uncertain.

In the meantime, companies must implement the new corporate-liability provisions concerning EU restrictive measures, environmental offences and AI-related crimes. This will require updates to risk assessments and organisational models, particularly regarding sanctions screening, environmental controls and AI governance.

From 1 January 2027, Legislative Decree No 173/2024 will replace and renumber the tax offences currently governed by Legislative Decree No 74/2000, while largely preserving their substance and penalties.

Enforcement will also become increasingly technology-intensive and cross-border. The EU e-Evidence Regulation facilitates access to electronic evidence held in other Member States, while Italian courts are imposing stricter proportionality requirements on digital searches and seizures. Bill No C.1822, concerning the seizure of electronic devices and data, remains before Parliament and may introduce a dedicated procedural framework.