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

Fraudulent Bankruptcy: Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Cassation, Criminal Section No. 36582 of 2024

The recent judgment No. 36582 issued by the Court of Cassation, Fifth Criminal Section, on October 2, 2024, provides important insights regarding the figure of the de facto administrator in the context of fraudulent bankruptcy. The case concerns A. A., who was convicted at first instance for fraudulent bankruptcy and tax offenses, but the Court annulled the sentence limited to one charge due to the statute of limitations, confirming the defendant's criminal responsibility in the rest.

The Role of the De Facto Administrator in Fraudulent Bankruptcy

The Court of Cassation reiterated that the de facto administrator, pursuant to Article 2639 of the Civil Code, is subject to the same duties and responsibilities provided for the de jure administrator. This implies that if an individual exercises significant and continuous managerial powers, they are responsible for any criminally relevant behavior.

The individual who assumes the role of de facto administrator is burdened with the full range of duties to which the de jure administrator is subject.

In the case of A. A., the Court highlighted how his actions and the corporate structure suggested a clear intent to avoid direct responsibility by using other individuals as "fronts." The evidence presented, including his role as a founding partner and the management of corporate operations, confirmed his position as a de facto administrator.

The Implications of the Statute of Limitations

A crucial aspect of the ruling is the analysis of the statute of limitations. The Court declared the offense charged in count 5 extinguished due to the statute of limitations, illustrating how the limitation period can operate even in a legitimacy review. This principle, established by Article 129, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allows the Court to annul the judgment without referral if it recognizes a more favorable cause of non-punishment.

  • The statute of limitations for the offense in count 5 expired after the ruling of the territorial court.
  • The Court emphasized the importance of clear evidence of non-punishment to proceed with the annulment.

This decision highlights how defense strategies in financial crimes must carefully consider the timing and methods of contestation, as the statute of limitations can play a decisive role in the final outcome.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the judgment No. 36582 of the Court of Cassation offers an important reflection on the concept of de facto administrator and criminal responsibility in fraudulent bankruptcy matters. It clarifies that mere formality does not exempt an individual from their obligations, while the statute of limitations serves as a safeguard for the defendant if respected. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, shedding light on the complexities of corporate management and the legal risks associated with it.