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

Commentary on Judgment No. 53/2023 of the Court of Appeal of Rome: Fraudulent Bankruptcy and Liquidator's Liability

Judgment No. 53 of February 15, 2023, of the Court of Appeal of Rome represents an important intervention in the field of fraudulent bankruptcy, examining the responsibilities of the liquidator of a company in crisis. The Court analyzed various aspects related to the company's accounting management, highlighting the differences between simple bankruptcy and fraudulent bankruptcy.

Illicit Conduct of the Liquidator

The Court confirmed the liability of R.G., liquidator of the company L. srl, for causing financial distress through unlawful conduct. In particular, the liquidator was accused of making preferential payments to a creditor, in violation of the provisions of bankruptcy law. The crime of preferential bankruptcy was established as the payment of Euro 31,355.87 to a former employee occurred to the detriment of other creditors.

Simple bankruptcy and documentary fraudulent bankruptcy are distinguished based on the different attitude of the subjective element.

Distinction Between Simple and Fraudulent Bankruptcy

A crucial element of the decision is the distinction between simple bankruptcy and fraudulent bankruptcy. The Court emphasized that to configure fraudulent bankruptcy, it is necessary to demonstrate the fraudulent intent to obstruct the reconstruction of the social assets. In this specific case, the Court found that the liquidator's awareness of the accounting irregularities had not been proven, leading to the reclassification of the charge from fraudulent bankruptcy to simple bankruptcy.

Implications of the Judgment

The judgment also addressed the issue of prescription. The Court declared that the cases of preferential and fraudulent bankruptcy were time-barred as of July 20, 2020, highlighting the importance of timeliness in legal actions within the bankruptcy context.

  • R.G. did not demonstrate awareness of the accounting irregularities.
  • The prescription has extinguished the cases of preferential and fraudulent bankruptcy.
  • The distinction between specific and generic intent is fundamental for the qualification of the crime.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 53/2023 of the Court of Appeal of Rome provides a clear view of the responsibilities of the liquidator in the event of bankruptcy. It emphasizes the importance of transparent management of accounting records and the necessity to avoid preferential payments that may harm creditors. This case represents an important reflection for all professionals in the sector, so they can operate in compliance with current regulations and safeguard the interests of all creditors.