News · Criminal law · – 12 November 2026
The bill would abolish the distinction between offences committed by persons in senior positions (soggetti apicali) and by subordinates and would make organisational fault (colpa di organizzazione) the basis of liability, whoever commits the offence. The public prosecutor would have to state the organisational deficiencies from the outset, in the charge and in any application for interim disqualification measures. The bill has yet to be examined by the Chamber: for now, Articles 5–8 of Legislative Decree 231/2001 remain in force.
The framework. Under new Article 6, the entity would be liable for offences committed in its interest or to its advantage by the persons listed in Article 5, paragraph 1, where the commission of the offence “was caused or facilitated” by the failure to adopt, or effectively implement, a compliance model suitable for preventing offences of the kind that occurred. According to the Government’s press release, the reversal of the burden of proof on the entity would fall away. The organisational deficiencies would have to be stated in the charge (contestazione, new Article 59, paragraph 2), in the application for interim disqualification measures (Article 45, paragraph 1) and, on pain of nullity, in the order committing the entity for trial (decreto che dispone il giudizio, Article 61, paragraph 2). Under new Article 7-bis, models drawn up in line with the guidelines of the associations representing entities would be presumed to meet the requirements of new Article 7, paragraph 1, but the court would still assess their suitability. Even without organisational fault, confiscation of the profit, including confiscation of equivalent value, would still apply, as Article 6, paragraph 5, already provides for offences committed by persons in senior positions.
Why it matters. At present, for an offence committed by a person in a senior position, it is for the entity to prove the conditions in Article 6, paragraph 1; under the reform, the prosecution would have to identify the deficiencies and their link with the offence. In our view, the defence would focus on how precisely the charge is worded, from the interim measures stage onwards. The bill also introduces a new ground for extinguishing the entity’s offence (new Article 8-bis): an entity that had adopted and implemented a model before the offence could, within ninety days of service of the notice of conclusion of the preliminary investigation, apply for time to remedy the deficiencies charged, making the profit available. Where the offence is a delitto (the more serious of the two classes of criminal offence under Italian law), extinction could not be declared more than twice. For tax offences, new Article 89-bis of the consolidated Act on tax penalties (Legislative Decree 173/2024) would extend to the entity the grounds of non-punishability for payment of the tax debt, provided it has remedied the organisational deficiencies. See our note on corporate criminal law and the liability of entities.
In practice. The bill imposes no obligations unless and until it becomes law. Entities that have adopted a 231 compliance model (modello 231) can nonetheless already review the points the text emphasises: the mapping of activities at risk and of the intensity of that risk, protocols and segregation of duties, and the periodic review and updating of the model. Pending proceedings remain governed by the current rules.
Frequently asked questions.
Is the 231 reform bill already in force?
No. As at 12 November 2026, A.C. 3127 has not yet been assigned to a committee of the Chamber and the text may change during the parliamentary process. Articles 5–8 of Legislative Decree 231/2001 as currently in force apply.
Who would have to prove organisational fault?
According to the Government’s press release, the reversal of the burden of proof on the entity would fall away. The public prosecutor would have to state in the charge the organisational deficiencies that caused or facilitated the offence.
Is a model that follows trade association guidelines enough?
Not on its own. A model drawn up in line with the guidelines of the associations representing entities would be presumed to meet the statutory requirements, but the court would still assess whether it was suitable to prevent the offence.
Summary note by the CommercialistiAvvocati network, based on specialised legal and practice sources. The text does not reproduce original contributions and does not constitute professional advice.