1. With the Sentenza n. 1070 of 25 January 2014 the Court of Milan has ruled, among others, on the issue of liability of the Entity within the meaning of D.lgs. 231/2001 (hereinafter the “Decree 231”) providing some indications on the content of an Organizational Model of Management and Control (hereinafter the “Model 231”) suitable and concretely implemented.
2. In particular, the Court of Milan has excluded the liability of a company (hereinafter“Entity”), in relation to an accusation of false social communications: the Model 231 was indeed considered suitable and actually implemented, while its fraudulent circumvention by the defendants has been accepted.
3. In the case in question, the case of violation of articles 5 and 25-ter of Decree 231, in relation to the offence of false social communications committed by some of the executive members of an Italian stock company, controlled by a company for Italian actions. 5 and 25-ter of the Decree231, in relation to the false social communications committed by some shareholders of an Italian joint-stock company, controlled by a multinational company with headquarters abroad, and detected thanks to the anonymous signals received through the whistleblowing system implemented by the Entity.
4. According to the thesis supported by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Entity would have adopted a Model 231 lacking in risk-risk analysis, as well as lacking real internal control presidencies suitable to prevent the commission of the contested act.
5. Dopo aver fornito alcune indicazioni sulle modalità di implementazione di un Modello 231 che sia idoneo ed efficacemente atuato al fine di escludere la responsabilità amministrativa dell’Ente, così come previsto dall’art. 6 del Decreto 231 (1) , il Tribunale di Milano ha applicato il principio di diritto affermato anche dalla giurisprudenza di legittimità, secondo il quale la valutazione della responsabilità dell’Ente deve avvenire secondo il meccanismo della c.d. “prognosi postuma”. This is a judgment to be made at the moment when the case has been committed, verifying foreseeability and avoidability if a “virtuous” Model 231 had been adopted and effectively implemented.
Si tratta quindi di valutare si, in presenza di un Modello 231 idoneo e la cui efficacia siastata accertata in concreto, il reato sarebbe stato commesso.
6. Tale criterio corrisponde al dettato normativo che richiede una valutazione del Modello 231 in concreto anziché in astratto.
7. The sentence in question is therefore based on the concept of fraudulent evasion, required by art. 6 of Decree 231, consisting of an “unmanageable, falsifying, oblique, subdola, such as to frustrate with the fraud the diligent respect of the rules on the part of the entity”. In particular, according to the Court of Milano, the exoneration of the Entity from the liability of the reato has been justified by the decision of the executive body completely dissociated from the policy of the company and, therefore, the result of a personal and autonomous choice of colors that have acted on behalf of the Entity, without the adoption of a suitable and effective Model 231.
8. Nella valutazione in concreto del Modello 231 adottato dall’Ente, la sentenza preliminariamente dà atto del contenuto dellarelazione redatta dal Consulente Tecnico del Pubblico Ministero che aveva considerato adeguato il Modello 231 adottato dall’Ente nella versione aggiornata del 2016, ma non quello precedente adottato nel 2011. Specifically, the Public Ministry’s Consultant had considered the previous version of Model 231 of 2011 as lacking, since it consisted of only the General Part and apparently deprived of the activity of mapping the arid-earthquake areas and of the protocols for the prevention of the same risk.
9. A giudizio del Tribunale di Milano, tali carenze formali sarebbero state superate dall’istruttoria dibattimentale che ha invece dimostrato come l’attività di risk assessment fosse stata concretamente svolta dall’Ente. In addition, Model 231 of 2011 provided for some protocols related to specific risk-risk prevention procedures, then merged in the Special Part of the version of the Model231 subsequently adopted in 2016.
10. In the course of the trial and at the end of the examination of the testimonies, however, the fraudulent circumvention of Model 231 emerged: in fact, the corporate climate within the Entity was characterized by a totally concentrated and autocratic management that had led to the systematic violation of the governance system, of the corporate policies and, therefore, of Model 231 itself (a phenomenon known as “override management”).
11. Il Tribunale di Milano si è infine soffermato anche sull’importanza del funzionamento del sistema whistleblowing implementato dall’Ente, posto che l’accertamento delle condotte contestate è stato possibile proprio perché emerse da alcune segnalazioni anonime, comunicate tramite il sistema whistleblowing adottato dall’Ente.
12. In light of the results obtained during the course of the trial, the Court of Milan has therefore accepted the contested judgment, believing that in the specific case of Modello 231, if properly and effectively implemented, would not have been able to prevent elusive and manipulative behavior such as that found in the trial.
13. Only within the scope of the judges in the field of Modelli 231, the approach followed by the judges of merit is characterized by the post hoc propter hoc c.d., i.e. by a presumption of inadequacy of the Modelli based on the mere verification of the actual commission of an alleged offence, regardless of the examination of the protocols and procedures effectively implemented by an Entity.
14. In the specific case, however, the judges have gone further: hanno speso un notevole sforzo istruttorio per accertare la concreta applicazione del Modello 231 e lo svolgimento delle attività di formazione ai fini dell’efficace atuazione dello stesso, This is achieved not only through the dissemination and communication of the Model and the Code of Ethics to all personnel, but also through periodic – and not occasional – training initiatives aimed at disseminating and implementing the understanding of the procedures and behavioral rules adopted.
For any questions regarding this argument, please contact us at Erika Stanca Avv. o Avv. Ilaria Carnassale
Ontier LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, registration number OC327289. Legal Notice
