Fraud at the cemetery of Catania
PRESS RELEASE
Catania, 23.11.2020
FRAUD AT THE CEMETERY OF CATANIA. ACCUSED UNTRACEABLE, POSTPONED THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL.
The first hearing of the trial for the alleged fraud at the Catania Cemetery was held today, in which the accused, a former employee of the Municipality of Catania -Servizi Cimiteriali e Funebri- and S.A.G., owner of a construction company, were charged with the crime of aggravated fraud. The former employee is also charged with the offence of false documents committed by a public official.
The Court of Catania - Criminal Section I - postponed the start of the trial due to the unavailability of S.G., (for which new searches have been ordered), and due to the lack of notification of S.A.G.
The facts originate from the complaint filed by the victim B.P., assisted by Law Firm Pipitone.
The reconstruction of the case in brief.
B.P., with advancing age, had decided to carry out all the formalities necessary to guarantee his family a dignified burial in the Catania Cemetery.
After making contact with S.G., at the time a municipal employee in charge of the Cemetery and Funeral Service, the latter - abusing the ingenuity and the state of necessity of the unsuspecting B.P. - offered him the possibility of "buying" an eight-seater tomb, taking over an expired concession. Placing his full trust in the public official, B.P. used his life savings to "buy" the concession and pay for the construction of the new family tomb. In fact, it paid over 12,000 euros in cash in the operation.
Unfortunately, when he applied to the Municipality for "extumulation", the last act before transferring his wife to the new tomb, he learned that he had been the victim of a fraud. The permission certificate that had been given to him by the municipal employee, complete with stamps and signatures, in fact, was false.
Today, 5 years after the event, the first hearing of the criminal trial was held, postponed due to the failure to notify S.G., who had been dismissed by the Municipality and who had become unavailable.
The trial was set for May 5, 2021 and November 22, 2021.
Unfortunately, it is with great regret that it is announced that B.P. passed away in 2019.
Still waiting to see if he will ever be able to use that space.
Besides the damage, the mockery.
Press release - Criminal complaint against the Wuhan's Authorities
On 6 April 2020, Mr. Stefano Francesco Pipitone, founder of his homonymous Law Firm, filed a criminal complaint on his behalf against the Mayor of Wuhan, the head of the Department "Infectious disease control" at Wuhan's Jianghan district Disease Control Center, against the Director General of the Central Hospital of Wuhan and the heads of the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission, of Hubei Provincial Health Commission, China's National Heatlh Commission (NHC), the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIN), the Wuhan Police Chief, for several offences, including, the crime of epidemic under article 438 of the Italian Criminal Code, attack on transport safety, under article 432, speculative maneuvers on goods pursuant, article 501bis, expressly requesting that the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Catania open investigations to shed light on the chain of deliberate omitted timely communications related to the outbreak of the SARS-COV-2 coronavirus, which occurred in China, in the city of Wuhan.
The complaint contained the results of several independent journalistic investigations, the conclusions of which reasonably allow to believe that already in November and December 2019 several Chinese authorities were in possession of sensitive clinical and epidemiological data on the nature of the virus, the degree and modality of transmission and the aggressiveness of the pathogen.
If such data had been promptly shared with the WHO and the international community, in the light of recent research carried out by Southampton University and reported by The Wall Street Journal, with a high degree of logical probability it would have been possible to avoid more than 90% of deaths.
The pandemic is considered by the WHO and the Italian Pandemic Plan as a “threat to National security”.
The seriousness of the facts, united with the information found in recent months by the most important international newspapers, deserve answers.
The news has been covered by ANSA press agency, msn, lasicilia.it
Covid-19. Criminal liability of companies. The importance of prevention protocols
In the business world, the Covid-19 emergency has taken on epochal proportions.
Upon restarting work activities, the pandemic and the consequent biological risk of contagion impose precise obligations on all employers: to adopt specific adaptation measures to protect workers' health, suitable to counter the spread of the virus.
An omission of protocols and protection measures would in fact expose the employer and the company itself to criminal liability, with pecuniary sanctions and interdiction. In parallel with compensation for damages.
Everyone knows that in Italy, too, companies are now liable with their own responsibility for crimes committed for the benefit or in the interest of the company, in accordance with Legislative Decree no. 231/2001.
Among the predicate offences that give rise to the Entity's liability, pursuant to Article 25 septies of Legislative Decree no. 231/2001, are included the crimes of culpable personal injury, (Article 509 of the Italian Criminal Code), and negligent murder, (Article 589 of the Italian Criminal Code), resulting from the violation of the regulations protecting health and safety at work.
This premise must be coordinated with art. 42 of the so called Cura Italia Decree, D.L n. 18 of 17.03.2020, according to which the Covid-19 coronavirus infection contracted during work constitutes an occupational injury within the meaning of Legislative Decree 81/2008. The figure was confirmed by INAIL note prot. 3675 of 17 March 2020, which specifies the mechanism of presumption that the disease was contracted during or on the occasion of work.
The result is that the Covid-19 contagion will be treated as an occupational accident.
The consequences can be summarised in these terms:
- for the employer the possibility of a charge for the crime of culpable injury (Article 590 of the Italian Criminal Code) or, even worse, of culpable murder (Article 589 of the Italian Criminal Code);
- for the company the direct involvement in the criminal proceedings with the charge as per Art. 25 septies of legislative decree 231/2001 "culpable homicide or serious or very serious injuries committed in violation of regulations on the protection of health and safety in the workplace", with monetary sanctions of up to € 1,549,000 and disqualification sanctions that extend to a ban on carrying out the activity.
The scenario described is obviously linked to the possibility that the company has NOT taken the necessary precautions to protect workers' health.
In this context, in view of the restart of work activities, it is essential to comply with the Protocols for the protection of workers provided for by the Government, in collaboration with trade associations (Confindustria, Confartigianato, etc.) and the most representative trade unions: "Shared protocol for the regulation of measures to combat and contain the spread of the Covid-19 virus in the workplace", dated 14 March 2020.
The above mentioned Protocol provides and regulates a series of guidelines on the subject of:
1. information for anyone entering the company;
2. procedures for entering the company, both for personnel and external suppliers;
3. cleaning and sanitation activities in the company;
4. personal hygiene precautions;
5. personal protective equipment (PPE);
6. management of common areas;
7. company organization, (rostering, transfers and smart working, remodulation of production levels);
8. employee entry and exit management;
9. internal transfers, meetings, internal events and training;
10. management of a symptomatic person in the company;
11. health/health surveillance/responsible physician/RLS;
12. updating of the regulatory protocol.
The need and importance of adopting measures to protect the psychophysical integrity of employees, as well as for the protection of the primary good of health, is twofold.
First of all, it originates from specific regulatory obligations, of a civil law nature, such as Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code or the provisions of the Consolidated Law on the protection of health and safety in the workplace, Legislative Decree 81/2008.
Secondly, as already mentioned at the beginning, the possible omission of prevention measures related to the so-called biological risk of contagion from Covid-19 coronavirus exposes the employer to precise criminal responsibilities, to which is added the possible profile of administrative responsibility of the company pursuant to Legislative Decree 231/2001.
As is well known, in fact, as a result of the entry into force of Legislative Decree 231/2001, Entities (companies, corporations or partnerships, associations, individual entrepreneurs) are liable "on their own" if a specific offence is committed, (so-called predicate offence), to the benefit or in the interest of the entity.
However, the responsibility of the company is not automatic.
The Entity is not subject to liability if the company has adopted Organisation and Management Models in line with the dictates of the regulations, suitable for preventing the risk of the crime that has occurred; that the task of supervising the functioning and observance of the Models is entrusted to a Supervisory Body with powers of initiative and control; that the persons have committed the crime by fraudulently evading the Model; that there is no omitted or insufficient supervision by the Supervisory Body.
Last, the offence must be committed for the benefit or in the interest of the Entity.
The discipline is very topical at a time when production activities are resumed and all companies will be called upon to adapt to the Covid-19 biological risk protection models.
On the subject of the "criminal" liability of Entities, in fact, with reference to the case of the crime of personal injury aggravated by the accident prevention regulations, (think of the case of a serious contagion from Covid-19), "there is the interest of the Entity in the event that the failure to set up safety systems results in cost savings, while there is the requirement of the advantage if the failure to comply with the precautionary regulations allows an increase in productivity", (Supreme Court of Cassation, Criminal Section IV, no. 24697 of 20.04.2016, Mazzotti and others, in Rev. 268066-01).
It should be considered that, for example, fall within the concept of cost savings, savings on consulting costs, on instrumental adjustment interventions, on training and information activities of personnel, (Court of Cassation, Criminal Section IV, no. 18073 of 19.02.2015).
On the basis of these regulatory and jurisprudential assumptions, it appears imperative for all commercial and productive activities to adopt the Protocols and measures to combat and contain the spread of the Covid-19 virus.
As for companies that have already adopted the Organisational Models pursuant to Legislative Decree 231/2001, it will be necessary to adapt the company protocols, update the DVR, where possible appoint a Committee for the application and verification of the rules of the regulatory protocol with the participation of the company trade union representatives and the RLS, compel the Supervisory Body to monitor the adequacy and effectiveness of the measures taken.
Coronavirus. Natural event or Human action? The crime of epidemic
updated on 9th of March 2020
From the Greek epi-demos: extended over the people.
The crime of epidemic is punished in Italy with life imprisonment.
"the enormous importance that has now acquired the possibility to come into possession of germs, capable of causing an epidemic, and to spread them..."
(A. Rocco, Minister of Grace and Justice of the Kingdom of Italy,
commentary on the new crime of epidemic, 1929)
The coronavirus (Covid-19) holds the world in suspense. Italy is entirely in lockdown.
No one today knows for sure the etiopathogenesis of this virus. The origin is unknown.
One thing is certain, it has spread and continues to spread.
Is the conscious coronavirus virus is punishable under Italian criminal law? Yes, life imprisonment.
On 29 January, the Italian Minister of Health ordered a total blockade of flights to/from China for 90 days. Italy and the Czech Republic are the only two European countries to have banned any direct flights to China with all airlines.
The U.S. has decreed level 4 alert and also the American companies have suspended flights. More than 70 airlines have suspended flights to China (since February 14, Lufthansa has also suspended flights to China). In Russia Aeroflot moved all flights to a dedicated terminal.
Etihad Airways decided on payroll bonuses and doubled the flight allowance for crews who agreed to fly to China during the epidemic, (the Beijing-Abu Dhabi route is still operational). The figure is relevant, considering that many countries have decreed quarantine (14 days) for all people who have been in China.
ICAO has estimated a contraction of flights from 39% to 41%, with 4-5 billion dollars of reduced operating revenues.
The Indian government has released throughout the population a note for prophylaxis in which, among others, a homeopathic treatment based on arsenicum album 30 is recommended, (here the article published by The Hindu newspaper).
In contrast, protective masks and sanitizers are experiencing a golden age. In 10 days, the Dpi in Rome has sold its 10 year stocks, with orders for tens of millions of pieces.
The race for the pharmaceutical companies' vaccine has begun. Among them the Advent srl of Pomezia. China applied for a new patent for an experimental drug from Gilead.
In fact, there have been alternating rumors both on the origin of animal and on the possibility that it is linked to the activity of the BSL-4 laboratory in Wuhan (safety level 4). Francis Byle, author of the Biologycal Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, an American expert on bioterrorism, has hypothesized that it is a bacteriological weapon of war and that the drastic measures adopted by the Beijing government, (including the sudden isolation of entire cities), are a direct expression of an awareness of the data and the dangerous effects of uncontrolled spread.
In February 2017 the magazine Nature, published a survey entitled Inside the Chinese lab poised to study world's most dangerous pathogens, dedicated an investigation on the inauguration of the BSL-4 laboratory in Wuhan, home of the most dangerous pathogens on the globe, born with the aim of "facing the greatest biological threats on the planet", (it is curious to note that today to that article the editorial staff has added a statement in which it distances itself from possible deductions with the coronavirus). The article can be found in the Italian version on Le Scienze: A Chinese laboratory for the most dangerous pathogens in the world.
Rumors about the possibility of a bioengineered strain of the virus intended for defensive immunotherapy protocols exploded again after Chinese state media have just reported that Major General Chen Wei, China's leading expert on biochemical weapons for defense, will be stationed in Wuhan - now militarized - to lead efforts to overcome the deadly pneumonia virus.
Beijing has already had 4 incidents that have caused the SARS virus to escape from the laboratories.
Add to this the research published by the Chinese scientist Zhengli Shi, co-author of a controversial 2015 document describing the creation of a chimera virus, born from the combination of a coronavirus found in bats with another that causes acute acute human respiratory syndrome (SARS) in mice. The U.S. government has placed a moratorium against this kind of experiments in 2014.
US biosafety experts in 2017 had warned against the possibility of virus escape from Wuhan.
On the other hand, the research and patent application to modulate the spike-protein genes of a SARS-Cov coronavirus are public.
Recently, an email emerged that on January 2, 2020, the Wuhan Institute of Virology sent to all Chinese medical departments with which the disclosure of coronavirus infection data was banned, "must not be disclosed to the media, including the official media and organizations with which they collaborate. They are asked to 'strictly adhere to what is required'. And then the director of the Institute, Wang Yan Yi, sent congratulations to the various departments of virology and research after Beijing's orders.
On 27 January in the USA a boy infected with the coronavirus was treated for the first time with an experimental drug, Remdesivir, used for Ebola and SARS. He was cured on 30 January and the data were published on 31 January in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The interesting data?
On January 21, before the trial in the USA, Dr. Wang Yan Yi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology filed a patent application for a medicine suitable to treat the new coronavirus.
The result was that Remdesivir now meets intellectual property barriers for use in China. It was because of the patent application, look at it, from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Is it just a case?
No one knows for sure about diffusion and mortality data. The calculation criteria have recently been changed by China itself. The matter is of great complexity: difficulty in finding free information from infected areas, (two reporters investigating in Wuhan have disappeared, as reported by the BBC), the first doctor who reported the spread of a new virus, arrested tortured and now dead (here the interview with the New York Times), The abrupt isolation of entire cities, with tens of millions of inhabitants locked indoors, closed intercontinental flights to/from China, quarantined ships, statements by Guo Wengui, an exiled millionaire outside China and a few videos leaking from the internet are the information data with which we interface today.
As of March 9th, 2020, there were over 113,000 people infected and 4,000 dead. In Italy there are more 9.000 new cases.
A simple analysis of the available information reasonably leads us to believe that this is the most singular "influence" of the last centuries, after the Spanish one, which seems to have led to tens of millions of deaths in the world.
The origin of the Covid-19 coronavirus is unknown.
The hypothesis of human manipulation of the virus is an interesting clue to draw a picture of the epidemic crime, foreseen and punished in Italy by Article 438 of the Italian Criminal Code with life imprisonment and, in the original formulation of 1930, with the death penalty.
The term "epidemic" refers to a contagious disease that simultaneously affects the inhabitants of a city or region. From the Greek epi-demos: extended over the people.
In medicine, the epidemic coincides with any contagious or infectious disease which, in view of the spread of pathogenic germs, is characterized by a rapid and massive appearance in a given territorial context, infecting a significant number of people such as to cause social alarm and a consequent danger for an indeterminate number of individuals.
The Italian legislative system has various rules on epidemics, access to ports for infected and uninfected ships, even on the treatment of repatriation of corpses.
However, above all, it is to the penal code that the most invasive regulation of the epidemic is entrusted. The semantic perimeter is, of course, different.
The Italian Criminal Law takes into consideration a more restricted ambit with respect to the medical-scientific phenomenon, regulating the conduct of "diffusion of pathogenic germs".
The crime of epidemic in our system is regulated by art. 438 of the Penal Code, which states that "Whoever causes an epidemic by spreading pathogenic germs is punished with life imprisonment. If the fact results in the death of several people, the death penalty is applied*", (* the death penalty was abolished and replaced with life imprisonment by Legislative Decree no. 224 of 10.08.1944).
For the record, this crime is not time-barred, (regardless of the recent reforms), pursuant to Article 157, paragraph 8, of the Italian Criminal Code.
Placed to protect public safety, the crime is included in our Criminal Code among the "crimes of common danger through fraud".
The crime of epidemic, structured in the legislative technique as a commission offence with a restricted form, sanctions the conduct of voluntary propagation of pathogenic germs of which the agent is in possession. The epidemic, in order to detect criminally, must be an event directly attributable to the indicted action.
It is interesting to observe how in the 1930s the Minister of Prayer and Justice A. Rocco, in introducing the new crime of epidemic and justifying the severity of the penalties, pointed out "It was recognized the need to provide for it in the Code, in relation to the enormous importance that has now acquired the possibility of coming into possession of germs, capable of causing an epidemic, and to spread them, and it was found justified the serious penalty, which is the penalty of life imprisonment for the typical form of the crime, and the death penalty, for the hypothesis that the fact results in the death of several people....", (Preparatory work for the Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1929, p.229).
The provision of the Penal Code is extremely broad, in so far as it does not identify precise methods of spread, requiring only that the agent causes an epidemic by spreading pathogenic germs, without specifying the method of spread, (it is essential that the method of spread is capable of causing an epidemic, i.e. has the potential to reach a large number of people).
It is interesting to note that the italian Supreme Court has also dealt with the problem of the unctor (super spreader), making it clear that, for the purposes of diffusion, it is not necessary that the agent and the germs are separate entities, as the agent is the vector of pathogenic germs. The case of the untore concerned a man suffering from HIV accused of having infected, knowingly, a large number of women, (Cass. Sez. I, sent. n. 48014 of 26.11.2019). In that case the Court dealt with the legal distinction between "contagion" and "epidemic spread", (what is different is in fact to infect someone with physical contact, compared to taking appropriate actions to trigger the epidemic type causal chain).
From this point of view, the untore who is aware of having contracted the coronavirus and continues to circulate freely, spreading the germs, meets a certain condemnation.
In short, from the legal point of view, the epidemic is characterized by an uncontrollable diffusivity within a significant number of subjects for a contagious disease of rapid development and autonomous within an indeterminate number of subjects and for a chronologically limited duration, (Sez. Unite, sent. 576, 11.01.2008, in Rv. 600899-92).
As far as the subjective element of the crime is concerned, (i.e. the degree of psychological participation of those who act), the epidemic is punished by fraudulent intent, since it is necessary for the acting subject to represent himself and want to cause the epidemic event.
For the sake of completeness, our Criminal Code also takes into consideration the hypothesis of a so-called "culpable epidemic", framed in the incriminating case of art. 452 of the Criminal Code "culpable crimes against public health" with which the hypothesis of an unintended epidemic spread is punished with lighter penalties (from 3 to 12 years or from 1 to 5 years), but attributable to hypothesis of guilt (negligence, imprudence and inexperience).
Think of the (fanciful) example of an infectivologist, modern Arsenio Lupin, who enters a high-security laboratory where mortally dangerous viruses are kept and, in an attempt to steal one, unwittingly carries out actions from which the virus spread.
What would happen to the person who reasonably believes he is infected with coronavirus but fails to inform the Ministry of Health and the bodies responsible for diagnostic tests?
It is reasonable to believe that contravening the indications of the Ministry of Health, (a call centre has been set up with the public utility number 1500), could certainly lead to the assertion of hypotheses of responsibility, including criminal liability, on the part of the private individual.
Fantasy reconstructions aside, in Italy, contrary to what one might think, the Court of Cassation has been called upon several times to rule on hypotheses of an epidemic.
Recently, the S.C. has analyzed the accusation of culpable epidemic in relation to the waterborne epidemic that broke out in 2009 in a municipality of Brescia due to the presence of enteric viruses with an infectious charge found in the local public aqueduct for a deficient management of the aqueduct, the water purification process and the consequent exposure to public health hazards.
In the legal databases, there are judgments on the epidemic of animal and plant parasites linked to the recent Xylella and the immeasurable damage caused to the cultivation of olive trees. Or again on the African swine fever epidemic, which is the basis of a huge claim for compensation to the Public Administration due for the slaughter of pigs.
Our legislation also expressly regulates the cases in which a ship or an aircraft with infected persons asks for access to a port/airport.
Law no. 106 of 9 February 1982, art. 1, regulates the "Practice of ports or airports in a condition of epidemic, of ships or aircraft not infected" under which, except in the case of emergency involving serious danger to public health, the Health Authority of a port or airport may not, because of another epidemic disease, refuse free practice to a ship or aircraft that is not infected or suspected of being infected with a disease.
It is interesting to refer to the Royal Decree of 16 June 1938, n. 1055 with which the convention stipulated in Rome between the Vatican City and the Kingdom of Italy, concerning the mortuary police service, was approved. In that agreement, among others, agreement no. 1/4 regulated the transport of the corpses of persons who died during an epidemic, providing that "it may be permitted to transport, one year after death, the corpses of persons who died during an epidemic, or as a consequence of one of the diseases mentioned above, when they are wrapped in a sheet immersed in a disinfectant solution and closed in a metal box welded to fire", "and then in another strong wooden box"[1]
Probably in the short term no one will be able to reconstruct how and why the Covid-19 coronavirus was born and spread.
However, our system offers all the tools to the Public Prosecutors to open an investigation.
Healthcare and Bribes. The case study of General Electric and Siemens
A river of bribes has flooded China's healthcare service
The giants General Electric and Siemens involved in a piloted tendering system
The scandal emerges from the investigation published by the New York Times into the Chinese market for medical, laboratory and imaging equipment.
Golf club memberships, SPAs, luxury watches and a cash flow are just some examples of the bribes distributed to Chinese Public Officials for Siemens Healthineers production lines, CT scanners, MRI devices to establish themselves in the Asian healthcare market.
The fact comes from dozens of convictions and countless documents subject to journalistic investigations initiated by the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung and continued by the New York Times.
According to several press agencies, the US Securities and Exchange Commission has opened investigations into Siemens AG, Philips NV and General Electric Co for using intermediaries to arrange bribes for the sale of medical equipment in China (source: GAN business anti-corruption portal).
A premise.
In the libraries of law faculties around the world, Siemens has repeatedly made the headlines for its sensational conviction of $800 million in 2007, (linked to the discovery of systematic bribes paid in Russia, Argentina, China, Venezuela, Libya, Nigeria).
It is recent the condemnation for the ascertained facts of corruption in Greece, for which the past head of Siemens, Von Pierner, was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Back to China.
The NY Times has reviewed dozens of cases in which employees of multinationals, including Siemens, have allegedly engaged in acts of bribery in order to gain public official approval in the Chinese health sector.
Following convictions in the last twenty years, Siemens, in line with other Bigs, has equipped the company with corporate compliance tools, codes of ethics, auditing systems, organizational models pursuant to Legislative Decree 231/2001.
However, all these tools have proved to be ineffective.
The corrupt system used, in fact, involved the use of stakeholders and business partners, who materially provided for the payment of bribes in the interest and to the advantage of the multinational.
In the process, the prices of medical instruments increased dramatically (by as much as 50%), causing enormous damage to the state finances.
Siemens, with a defensive line of Craxian memory, replied that from some comparative analyses it emerged that in the judgments of the Chinese courts "a similar number of transactions could be found also among other competitors" and that the German company had "only a limited influence" on the intermediaries used in the transactions.
To get an idea of the size and attractiveness of the Asian market, just think that in 2018 China imported more than 22 billion dollars worth of medical devices.
According to the NY Times investigation, the cost (damage) of the corruption ascertained in Siemens, General Electric, Philips will fall on the shoulders of 1.4 billion Chinese citizens.
However, the interest of public prosecutors in the case has focused on the positions of Chinese public officials, leaving multinationals out of the picture.
From the reconstruction offered by the media, it is interesting to recall the case (among many) of a Siemens representative who said he paid $900,000 in 2016 to the director of a hospital in Qinzhou to secure the sale of a Siemens M.R.I. instrument. The Siemens representative, named Jin in the court documents, reported stacks of money stuffed in boxes and delivered in the trunk of the hospital director's car, Chen Fengkun.
Curious to note how Chen was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The representative, Jin, was sentenced to three years.
(For more details, GAN-Business Anti-Corruption Portal).
But this is not the only case in which Siemens seems to have used intermediaries to obtain contracts.
The Legal Evening News traced 19 cases of corruption involving Siemens employees or stakeholders. Other media reported 40 convictions.
During one of the trials, a witness said that all the multinationals involved already knew that the bids were mere formalities.
It is easy to deduce that, if the information was confirmed, inducing business partners to bribe would have the effect of circumventing all anti-corruption, compliance and MOGC policies under Legislative Decree 231/2001 formally adopted and publicised by the companies.
Is it possible to believe that none of the directors of the companies would verify the appropriateness of the abnormal selling prices of the equipments?
The NY Times' investigative body of inquiry reports that one former chief compliance officer for Siemens’s health care unit in China, in affirming the medical device manufacturers' awareness of corruption, stated that this was "conspiracy scheme". Mr. Liu revealed that he was fired for talking about corruption in the Chinese subsidiary. In 2013, Liu subsequently lost a retaliatory lawsuit against Siemens in New York against whistle-blowers.
"Everyone knows. The problem is how to get people to talk. Since everyone lives in this system, no one dares to denounce others" added Mr. Liu, who also passes Louis Liu.
Siemens replied that Mr. Liu's accusations were investigated and that "they have no merit".
After the corrupt scandals of the decade 2004-2014 for which Siemens paid more than $1 billion in sanctions, the company set up new, rigorous Internal Control Systems.
According to the media investigations, however, it seems that the new guidelines have shown all their apparent limits. Until 2018, in China.
to study the subject in more detail:
- https://scenarieconomici.it/siemens-batte-i-cinesi-in-corruzione-oltre-40-condanne-ad-oriente/
- https://parstoday.com/it/news/world-i170238-germania_siemens_condannata_da_tribunali_cinesi
- https://www.money.it/SEC-apre-dossier-Siemens-Philips-General-electric-illeciti-in-Cina
- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/business/china-ge-siemens-bribery-medical-devices.html
- https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/zahlungen-an-chinesische-klinik-chefs-schmiergeld-fuer-siemens-produkte-geflossen-1.4149981#redirectedFromLandingpage
- https://www.ganintegrity.com/portal/news/german-media-reveals-how-chinese-bribes-for-siemens-products-flowed/
- https://www.ganintegrity.com/portal/news/sec-probes-siemens-ge-philips-in-alleged-china-medical-equipment-scheme/
Selling expired homeopathic medicines is a crime. The Supreme Court equates allopathy and homeopathy
In a historic verdict, the Supreme Court affirms the equivalence of homeopathic and allopathic medicines for the crime of trade of failed medicines
With sentence no. 35627/2019 the Supreme Court - Criminal Section I - convicted the owner of a pharmacy held responsible for the crime of Commerce of failed medicines, ex art. 443 penal code for having sold to a customer an expired homeopathic medicine and for having held in stock more than 194 expired medicines, (half of which homeopathic).
The pharmacist's defence was based on the non-assimilability of homeopathic medicines to (allopathic) medicines.
In detail, the owner of the pharmacy defended his position by arguing that the medicines in question, as homeopathic, would not have therapeutic efficacy and that therefore the conduct of trade or administration was not suitable to configure the objective element of the crime referred to in Article 443 of the Criminal Code, (focused on the concept of an imperfect medicinal product), nor, even less, was the different offence under Article 453 of the Criminal Code applicable. (culpable crimes against public health).
The Supreme Court did not accept the defensive argument.
On this point, in fact, the Judges of the S.C. stated with extreme clarity that "it is not in the least doubtful whether the homeopathic drug can be traced back to the concept of medicinal product, given the broad definition for the purpose provided by the Legislative Decree No. 219 of 2006, article 1, paragraph 1, point a), which includes "any substance or combination of substances presented as having curative or prophylactic properties in human diseases", (point 1 of the provision), as well as "any substance or combination of substances which may be used in or administered to man for the purpose of restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions, exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or establishing a medical diagnosis".
From the legislative point of view, the verdict shows that Europe has also intervened on this matter, adopting a European Directive (no. 2001/83/EC) by which it has been specified that the Community code, which includes medicinal products for human use, also includes homeopathic products. These in fact are subject to a specific registration procedure, to the respect of safety standards and - as a regulation - to drug supervision.
(For further information on homeopathic medicinal products, please refer to the link to the Italian Medicines Agency- Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco).
With these preliminary remarks, framing the facts of the trial within the current regulatory framework, the Supreme Court has decided to confirm the content of the sentence imposed on the pharmacist, stating that: "even the expired homeopathic medicine constitutes an "imperfect medicine" for the purposes of the offence provided for by Article 443 of the Criminal Code".
In summary, according to the criminal law, the homeopathic drug is equated to a medicinal product.
The sentence is also interesting for other profiles addressed in the grounds, related to the organization of pharmacies and the relevance of organizational deficiencies on the profile of the psychological element of the crime.
The defensive argument argued challenged the absence of willful intent in the established facts committed by the owner of the pharmacy, justifying the presence of 194 expired medicines in stock as a simple lack of organization of a negligent nature, not suitable to supplement the willful intent required by the incriminating rule of Article 443 of the Criminal Code.
Also this defence argument did not convince the Judges of the S.C. On this point, in fact, the Supreme Court has specified how the crime in question is punished as general fraud. Specifically, the requirement of fraudulent intent of the crime of Commerce of faulty medicines is configured by the conscious detention for the commerce of expired or imperfect medicines, the proof of which can take place by means of external indexes, symptomatic of the awareness of the acting subject. Well, based on the evidentiary circumstances that emerged in the trial, the disorganization of the pharmacy could not be interpreted as mere negligence or carelessness.
On the contrary, the deficient organizational modalities and the general neglect of specific professional duties were evaluated as revealing indices of an attitude of absolute indifference of the pharmacy owner. This indifference to the disorganisation of the pharmacy made the marketing of expired medicines predictable and likely. Therefore, with regard to the subjective element of the offence, the evidence of the trial allowed the so-called possible malice (dolo eventuale- nda), i.e. the acceptance of the risk of verification of the legal event envisaged by the incriminating law, (i.e. the trade or possession of expired medicines), to be considered as proven.
Finally, in its ruling, the Supreme Court expressly excluded that the case could be traced back to the newly introduced, and lighter, administrative fine of "possession of expired, faulty or imperfect medicines", enacted by Law no. 3 of 11 November 2018.In the above mentioned legislative intervention, in fact, a reason was provided for the exclusion of the punishability from the crime of "Trade or Administration of faulty medicines", (and from the hypothesis of "Culpable offences against health" pursuant to Article 452 of the Criminal Code), in all cases where it appears, in relation to the small quantity of such medicines, the manner of storage and the total amount of reserves, that it can be concretely excluded the destination to the market of the same.
However, the thesis has not convinced the Judges, who have judged the facts as serious and fully attributable to the crime originally challenged.
The Court of Cassation thus confirmed the conviction, affirming the principle that the offence of "trade of malfunctioning medicines" provided for by Article 443 of the Italian Criminal Code also includes the possession and marketing of an expired homeopathic medicine.
Corporate Criminal Liability (Legislative Decree 231/2001): What It Is and How to Protect Your Company
28th of February 2026
Legislative Decree 231/2001 revolutionized the concept of business risk in Italy by introducing corporate criminal and administrative liability.
What does this mean in practice? If an employee, manager, director, or collaborator commits a specific crime to benefit the company, the company itself pays with its own assets, entirely independently and in addition to the personal liability of the individual who committed the act.
Penalties for Companies: From Financial Loss to Business Closure
The sanctioning system provided by D.Lgs. 231/2001 is extremely severe and can compromise the very survival of a business. In case of conviction, the company risks:
-
Pecuniary sanctions (Fines): ranging from a minimum of 25,800 euros up to over 1.5 million euros.
-
Disqualifying sanctions: the most feared by entrepreneurs. These include the suspension of business activities, revocation of authorizations or licenses, prohibition from contracting with the Public Administration, and exclusion from subsidies and public financing.
The 3 Requirements for Corporate Conviction
Corporate liability is not triggered automatically for any violation, but requires three specific conditions to be met:
1. The Commission of a "Predicate Offense"
The illicit act must fall within an exhaustive list established by the legislator and constantly updated. Currently, the families of crimes that trigger the Entity's liability include:
- Misappropriation of public funds, fraud against the State, computer fraud against the State, and public supply fraud
- Computer crimes and illicit data processing (Cybercrime)
- Organized crime offenses
- Corruption, Embezzlement, extortion, undue inducement to give or promise utilities
- Counterfeiting of money, public credit cards, revenue stamps, and identification instruments
- Crimes against industry and commerce
- Corporate crimes
- Crimes with the purpose of terrorism or subversion of the democratic order
- Crimes against individual personality (including illegal gangmastering, reduction to slavery, and exploitation of prostitution)
- Market Abuse
- Manslaughter and severe or very severe negligent injury, committed in violation of occupational health and safety regulations
- Money laundering, receiving stolen goods, use of illicitly obtained money or goods, and self-laundering
- Copyright infringement crimes
- Inducement to withhold statements or to make false statements to Judicial Authorities
- Environmental crimes
- Employment of third-country nationals with an irregular stay
- Racism and xenophobia
- Fraud in sports competitions, abusive gaming, or betting
- Tax crimes and tax fraud
- Smuggling
- Crimes against cultural heritage, laundering of cultural goods, and devastation
- Crimes regarding non-cash payment instruments and fraudulent transfer of values
- Violation of European Union restrictive measures
- Crimes against animals
- Specific crimes in the agri-food sector
2. The Interest or Advantage for the Entity
The crime must have been committed in the interest or to the advantage of the company. A classic example is the violation of safety regulations to save on production costs, or tax evasion to increase corporate liquidity. If the employee acts for an exclusively personal purpose (e.g., stealing money from the corporate coffers for themselves), the company is not held liable.
3. The Absence of an Organizational Model (MOG)
This is where the true defense of the company lies. Liability is triggered only if the Entity has not adopted an effective Organization, Management, and Control Model (MOG) and has not appointed a Supervisory Body (Organismo di Vigilanza - OdV).
The MOG 231: The Protective Shield for Directors
The only way to protect corporate assets and avoid disqualifying sanctions is to act proactively. Adopting a MOG 231 allows the company to prove to magistrates that it has done everything possible to prevent the crime.
Attention, however: jurisprudence is extremely strict. "Copy-paste" models downloaded from the internet have no legal value. To be considered a valid exemption in court, a MOG must be "tailored" to the specific reality of the enterprise, preceded by an in-depth risk assessment of internal procedures, and constantly monitored by an autonomous and independent Supervisory Body.
Furthermore, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation has clarified that the CEO or the Board of Directors are held personally liable (liability action) if they fail to provide the enterprise with adequate organizational structures to prevent crimes.
Concrete Advantages: Legality Rating and INAIL Discounts
Complying with D.Lgs. 231/2001 is not just a "defensive obligation" but offers immediate competitive and financial advantages:
-
Reduction of the INAIL premium: Companies that adopt or update a MOG 231 can request a discount on the INAIL insurance premium (OT23 model), quickly recovering the investment made for legal compliance.
-
Access to Credit and Public Tenders: The adoption of the Model contributes to obtaining the Legality Ratingissued by the AGCM (Italian Competition Authority). The "legality stars" facilitate access to bank financing, public tenders, and improve commercial reputation on the market.
Is your company truly protected from the risks outlined in Legislative Decree 231/2001? Do not wait for an inspection or an unexpected event to find out.
✉️ Contact the Firm by writing to info@stefanopipitone.eu to request a preliminary assessment of corporate risks and to structure a tailor-made Organizational Model.
Disturbing the peace. The owner of the club responds for the breach of peace of clients
Disturbance of the public peace
The owner of the club is also responsible for the noise of the customers
Summer has its strengths and weaknesses.
Everyone is looking for rest, but many people interpret it differently.
There are those who hope for silence and those who love the nightlife. The two things, you know, are not well combined.
The Supreme Court, with sent. 28570 of July 2nd 2019 stated that the manager of a public club (or restaurant) is liable for the crime of disturbance of peace (art. 659, paragraph 1, Italian Penal Code) not only when the noise comes from inside the place, but also when the noise is caused by clients "parked" in front of the club.
For the III Section of the Supreme Court (Extending Judge Dr. Cerroni), the manager/owner assumes a position of guarantee from which derives the obligation to ensure that the attendance of its activities does not lead to conducts contrary to the rules to protect public order, tranquility and peace.
In short, the manager of the club is not only responsible for the noisy sources, (music), coming from inside the activity, but also for the loud speech of the clients and for that coming from the people present (and parked) in front of the entrance of the place.
The Court also specified that the offence may be of a permanent nature.
This means that even a single noisy or shameful conduct, in certain circumstances, when it causes a disturbance to the occupations or rest of the people can integrate the crime.
There is no need to prove that the noise disturbed a "widespread audience".
The adequacy of the fact to disturb an indeterminate number of individuals is sufficient, without the actual disturbance being necessary.
The Judges have recalled on this point the previous jurisprudence of a verdict imposed against the owner of dogs, kept in a garden, who did not prevent a continuous barking that disturbed the rest of the nearby houses (Cass. Pen. - Section I - Sent. n. 7748 of 24.01.2012, Giacommasso).
In conclusion, the manager/owner has the legal duty and responsibility to check (also by calling on the Police) that the frequency of the place by the customers does not result in conduct contrary to the peace of mind.
In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed the first-level guilty verdict of the Court of Florence.
Reform of the Italian Self Defense: does the castle doctrine enter Italy?
Who fires will always be investigated
On 6 March 2019, the reform of self-defense, governed by Article 52 of the Italian Penal Code, was approved.
The reform was publicized as an important legislative innovation, introduced to protect those who suffer the intrusion into their homes by criminals.
In particular, the idea was propagandized as through the "new self defense", "the sacrosanct right to self-defence will be protected for those who are attacked at home, in the bar, in the restaurant". The aim advertised by the Government was to avoid "useless" trials against those who defended themselves at home, also through the use of weapons.
In other words, we introduced in Italy the so-called castle doctrine, the doctrine of the castle, of Anglo-Saxon origin.
But is it really a reform? Is it useful, in terms of Law?
Let's start from the analysis of the statistical data published by the Senate: in Italy from 2013 to 2016 the number of trials opened for facts qualified as " self-defence" or "culpable excess of self-defense" counts only 2.5 cases, (two point five), out of a total of about 1,500,000 (one and a half million) criminal proceedings opened per year.
The data shows the real extent of the " self-defence issue " that has engaged the Government, Parliament and the media. An average of two criminal cases per year out of more than one and a half million.
A ridiculous statistic, propagated as a social problem, even included in the electoral agenda by some parties.
Further clarification: the Italian criminal system of Laws already provided for the institute of the Self-Defense, governed by the Criminal Code of 1930, reformed in 2006.
But let us come to the merit of the Reform (?), analyzing in synthesis the principal normative modifications and the practical consequences.
The Reform of Art. 52 ( self-defense) and Art. 55 ( culpable excess) of the Criminal Code provides that:
The citizen is authorized to use "a legitimately possessed weapon or other suitable means" for the defense of "his own or others' safety", or rather, of "his own goods or those of others".Before the reform, the defense action, to be legitimate, required the requirement of proportionality between defense and offense. It is good to specify how this assessment was and will always remain the prerogative of the courts, (certainly not the same person who "shot").
For example, there is a big difference between shooting a thief who has entered a 10 hectare campaign, perhaps stealing oranges from a tree, and shooting a thief who, despite an injunction to desist, continues to threaten or violate the personal safety of a person.
Well, the aim of the reform was to eliminate this difference.
Today the Law assumes that there is always and in any case a relationship of proportionality between defense and offense.
The Reform introduces a presumption of legitimate defense when the action is committed by the one who is inside his own or others' domicile, (house or place of work), in order to reject the intrusion within the domicile. It should be noted that here the object of the action is not theft, but the mere intrusion into the home. With the consequences that follow.
A cause of non-punishability has been introduced with respect to negligente excess of self-defense (art. 55 of the Italian Criminal Code), when the action is committed in a condition of "impaired defence" or in a "state of serious disturbance" deriving from the danger.
In the case of conviction for the crime of theft in the apartment and theft with tearing, the conditional suspension of the sentence is subject to compensation for the damage.
Penalties for home invasion are increased.
Patronage to State Expenses is recognized in favour of the person who has been acquitted or acquitted for acts committed in a condition of legitimate defense or of culpable excess of legitimate defense.
The shooter will always be investigated.
The use of a weapon against a human being always requires an investigation by the Judicial Authority. This is an elementary principle of a rule of law.
To use direct language, here we intend to reiterate the need for an assessment to understand whether the facts relate to a robbery, rather than a "settlement of accounts" between people who have challenged each other, or a premeditated murder.
Investigation and prosecution are indispensable tools for ascertaining the procedural truth of what has happened. That the reform of the legitimate will avoid "useless trials against those who have only defended themselves" is mere propaganda, detached from reality.
Nobody thinks that the new discipline will allow the use of weapons indiscriminately against anyone who enters a private property.
From the point of view of substantive criminal law, in the respect of the constant principles of law affirmed by the Supreme Court, we believe that the "reform" will not actually produce any new effect with respect to the regulations previously in force.
From the point of view of substantive criminal law, in the light of the constant principles of law affirmed by the Supreme Court, we believe that the "reform" will not actually produce any new effect with respect to the regulations previously in force. In fact, if the new discipline were to be interpreted in a literal way, it would end up distorting the very institution of legitimate defense, putting it in contrast with some elementary principles of our system.
For these reasons, the Union of Italian Criminal Lawyers and the Association of National Judges have raised doubts as to the unconstitutionality of the rules introduced.
The President of the Republic, Mattarella, promulgated the Law, declaring: "Article 2 of the Law, modifying Article 55 of the Penal Code, attributes decisive importance 'to the state of serious disturbance deriving from the situation of danger in progress': it is clear that the new legislation presupposes, in a sense consistent with the Constitution, an objective scope of the serious disturbance and that this is effectively determined by the concrete situation in which it manifests itself".
Unfortunately, it is regrettable to note that the requests of the whole world of jurists (academics, magistrates and lawyers) have remained unheard. As happened previously with the abolition of the statute of limitations.
Some concluding considerations: la castle doctrine.
The reform of the newly introduced Self-Defense is borrowed from the so-called Castle doctrine, the theory of the Castle, of American origin, where citizens are equated with the King of that feud called private property.
Unfortunately, the parliamentary debate and the resonance of the mass media has kept silent the consequences that brought the application of the Castle doctrine in the U.S., especially when applied in relation to that particular cause of non-punishability of the "disabled defense or the state of serious distress.
The U.S. judicial chronicles must be studied carefully.
The American jurisprudential databases are full of stories of fathers who, strengthened by their position as King of the Fief, mistaken their son for a thief, shooting only because he had returned home late from the garden, at night, so as to avoid a reprimand more.
America was moved by the case of a person who one fine morning legitimately killed a 20-year-old boy who had sought refuge on his veranda, fleeing a police raid at a party in his neighbor's house, where alcoholic beverages were used among children under 21 years of age.
Yoshihiro Hattori, a recent Japanese student in the U.S., searched for a party venue on Halloween, but rang the bell for the wrong house. The owner, after warning him to leave, fired. He, dressed as John Travolta simply did not understand that phrase uttered in a narrow and fast American and was cold.
Andrew de Vries, a Scottish student, lost in the street, guilty of knocking on the back of a house to ask for information and, instead of the indication, receives a bullet fired from the inside.
The common element of all these cases is that the owner of the house considers himself "justified" by a subjective state of fear, (serious disturbance), which the system protects and feeds, declaring reasonable his "defensive" reaction.
The effects of castle doctrine, (as well as the even more extreme "stay your ground"), in America have produced an increase in murders and accidents of firearms, as scientifically evidenced by a study published in 2016 by the journal Epidemiologic Review.
What will happen in Italy?
To date, all that remains is to wait and put our trust in that portion of lawyers and magistrates who are attentive and prepared, entrusted with the task of interpreting the rules of the Criminal Code in accordance with the Constitutional Rights.
Jealousy. Spyware in his wife's smartphone. Convicted
Wife's mobile phone infected with spy software. It's a crime
(Supreme Court - Criminal Section V - sentence no. 15071 5.04.2019)
Once upon a time there were the diaries.
Today, the theme has evolved into spy software. And it's very topical.
The Italian Criminal Code punishes, with the crime provided for by Article 617bis, the conduct of the person who installs equipment in order to intercept / interrupt communications and conversations.
The penalty provided has a range of between one and four years imprisonment, depending on the seriousness of the facts ascertained.
This crime was introduced into our penal system back in 1974, with the approval of Law no. 98/1974 on the confidentiality, freedom and secrecy of communications.
As it is easy to see, in 1974, the forms of interception discussed in Parliament were very different and far from the current instruments.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court responded to the following question: can current spy-software fall within the legal concept of "interceptions" taken into account by Article 617bis of the Criminal Code?
The answer is Yes.
The legal question is inspired by the conduct of a particularly jealous husband, who had installed malware on his wife's tablet and smartphone.
Well, the Supreme Court - Section V Criminal - with the latest ruling on the subject, No 15071 of April 5, 2019, has answered the question, resolving any doubt.
After a brief reference to previous case law on the subject, (for a full and complete picture we recommend reading the ruling to United Sections of Supreme Court -Scurato- n. 26889, 28.04.2016, Rv 266905), the Court has reiterated how our Criminal Code severely protects the good of freedom of communication, of constitutional rank, severely sanctioning all those activities preparatory to the interception.
With the crime ex art. 617 bis c.p., in fact, the threshold of punishment is anticipated with respect to the interception of actual communication.
In other words, the simple installation of the spy software already constitutes a crime.
And nothing applies if then the program should never be activated or nothing is intercepted.
This is because the interception, as such, is considered by the jurisprudence a post factum with respect to the crime referred to in Article 617 bis of the Criminal Code, that is, a fact subsequent and further to the fraudulent installation of the interception tools, (so-called computer sensors).
For the sake of completeness, it should be remembered that, a fortiori, the action of interception in the strict sense constitutes an autonomous crime.
The Supreme Court, after clarifying the interpretative guidelines on the subject of the illicit installation of computer collection systems, thus rejected the proposed appeal, confirming the sentence pronounced against the jealous husband, to which is added the consequent compensation for damages in favor of the wife.