• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Fraudulent Bankruptcy: Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling No. 34811 of 2024

The recent intervention of the Supreme Court, with ruling No. 34811 of September 16, 2024, has highlighted crucial aspects of fraudulent bankruptcy, particularly regarding the figure of the de facto administrator. The ruling focuses on the case of A.A., convicted for fraudulent documentary bankruptcy due to insufficient accounting records, emphasizing the criminal responsibilities linked to corporate management.

The Context of the Ruling

The Court of Appeal of Milan had confirmed the conviction of A.A. for having removed the accounting records of the company ERRE 8 Srl, thereby exacerbating the position of creditors and compromising the verification operations by the bankruptcy trustee. In particular, the Supreme Court emphasized that the subjective element of the crime of fraudulent documentary bankruptcy is configured with the awareness and intention of disregarding the accounting records, making it impossible to reconstruct the assets.

The Court reiterated that the irregular management of accounting records constitutes a criminally relevant behavior.

Reasons for the Appeal and the Court's Responses

A.A. filed an appeal based on four main grounds, all rejected by the Court. Among the objections, the defendant argued the inadmissibility of witness statements, the lack of certain evidence of his role as a de facto administrator, and the request for generic mitigating circumstances. However, the Supreme Court deemed these grounds unfounded, highlighting the admissibility of the collected evidence and the consistency of the reasoning of the contested ruling.

  • The testimony of C.C. was considered valid despite objections regarding her status as a witness.
  • The documentary evidence confirmed A.A.'s responsibility in corporate management.
  • The request for generic mitigating circumstances was denied, as there were no positive elements present.

Legal Implications and Conclusions

The analyzed ruling offers an important reflection on the responsibilities of administrators in cases of fraudulent bankruptcy. It emphasizes that a de facto administrator, like A.A., can incur criminal liability even in the absence of a formal recognition of his role. The legal consequences are significant, as non-compliance with accounting regulations and irregular management of records can lead to severe penalties. In conclusion, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the necessity of strict compliance with legal provisions in bankruptcy matters, reiterating the principle that every administrator must ensure the transparency and truthfulness of accounting records.