This research thesis aims to analyze the dimension of punishment in d.lgs. n. 231/2001 through which the national legislator, urged by international pressure, overcomes the traditional dogma of the unaccountability of the legal person with the introduction and regulation of entity legal liability. It consists of a form of para-penal responsibility, which aroused several debates among the interpreters. In fact, the interpretation appears to be especially divided on the entity’s liability structure and, more in particular, on the corporate legal obligation on the occurrence of the same illicit act committed by a natural person, in the context of necessary multiple complicity in the offenses or of an autonomous offence, which is not identified with the predicate offence, but rather includes it. Indeed, it seems preferrable the qualification of autonomous offense of the entity responsibility, according to which the predicate offence constitutes the illegal act and it is therefore necessary to verify the adequacy of the prevention rule adopted in the context of compliance programs. It is ascribed to the entity an own fact of disorganization, to whom is predicable an authentic guilty judgment in form of subjective collectability that caused the crime event. This solution results from the acknowledgement of the para penal nature of the entity’s liability, which requires the enhancement of the guarantee claims related to the principle of guilt. Having thus identified the entity’s liability structure, we examine the individual constituent elements of the relative liability, set by the d.lgs. n. 231/2001. The latter requires a series of elements, characterized by objective and subjective nature, on whom it operates a differentiation of the entity's responsibility. Although it is not often possible to give a univocal interpretation, the decree of 2001 seems to be exhaustive in terms of structure of the illicit act, stating its constitutive elements, but, on the other hand, it neglects the dimension of punishment, limited to provisions lacking of a particular order or any systematic intervention. Furthermore, an articulated penalty system is envisaged, conceived following the trinary logic of pecuniary sanctions and disqualification sanctions with a double function to which d.lgs. n. 231/2001 binds a series of forecasting incidents on the entity’s punishment system. In particular, it focuses on indexes of punishment, such as the exemption of art. 6, which identify an essential moment in that attributes a disclaimer of liability value to the effective adoption and implementation of crime prevention models, adopted by acts of self-regulation. As well as, to the modifying events of the entity, which besides an immediate effectiveness on the structure of the societas, they reverberate on the actions charged to the entity with different function and value and, with respect to which, it is necessary to ascertain a continuity of action with respect for the personality principle. The analysis on the events that decide about the punitive dimension of the entity is completed with the procedural discipline which, already in the ritual code, give rise to a form of contractualization of the penalty, as well as with that discipline which significanty diverge from the criminal trial by the physical person. After analyzing the indices of punishment presented in the d.lgs. n. 231/2001, the closing chapter of the thesis concentrates on the analysis of the relationship between the punishment of the illegal act and the punishment of the entity, where it is possible to highlight a sort of "praxeological deviation". The principle of autonomy of the entity's liability pursuant to art. 8, which tends to make the offense of the legal person insensitive to the events of the punishment, which remains stationary despite of the extinction of the assumption crime, the failure author’s identity, or its lack of imputability. In this conclusive part of the thesis, having thus drawn attention to the likely interference between the discipline of the possible participation of more people in the illegal act and the punishable nature of the entity, we proceed to analyze the relationships between the individual causes of non-punishable code and the responsibility of the legal person, in which it is clear the lack of communication between the crime and the entity, currently not justifiable. In particular, a certain lack of discipline is brought by d.lgs. n. 231/2001 for what concerns the regulatory landscape. It enriched the arsenal on the non-punishability of the offence with the prediction of the entity of non-punishability for a particular non serious action, for the probation order, for the procedural collaboration and for the restorative conducts. Referring to a regulatory context which has changed so deeply, it seems unavoidable an utter consideration on the dimension of punishment of the entity, which could lead to a subsequent enhancement during legislative choices and the enrichment of the rewarding mechanism for the legal person. Indeed the “effort” in terms of risk prevention deserves to be compensate on the side of the sanction decision.

La tesi di ricerca intende esaminare la dimensione della punibilità nel d. lgs. n. 231/2001 con cui il legislatore interno, sospinto dalle pressioni internazionali, ha superato il tradizionale dogma della irresponsabilità punitiva della persona collettiva, introducendo e disciplinando la responsabilità da reato dell’ente. Si tratta di una forma di responsabilità (para) penale, la quale ha destato numerosi profili di dibattito tra gli interpreti. In particolare, si discute sulla struttura dell’illecito dell’ente e nello specifico se l’ente sia chiamato a rispondere del medesimo reato commesso dalla persona fisica nell’ambito di una fattispecie a concorso necessario oppure di un illecito autonomo che non si identifica con il reato presupposto, ma semmai lo comprende. Ed, in effetti sembra preferirsi la qualificazione come illecito autonomo in cui il reato presupposto costituisce l’evento, rispetto al quale occorre verificare la adeguatezza della regola di prevenzione adottata nell’ambito dei compliance programs. Si ascrive all’ente un fatto proprio di disorganizzazione, per il quale è predicabile un autentico giudizio di colpevolezza sotto forma di esigibilità soggettiva, che abbia causato il reato-evento. Si tratta di una soluzione conseguente all’ormai pacifico riconoscimento della natura (para) penale della responsabilità dell’ente, la quale impone la valorizzazione delle istanze garantistiche connesse al principio di colpevolezza. Così individuata la struttura dell’illecito dell’ente, si analizzano i singoli elementi costitutivi della relativa responsabilità previsti dal d.lgs. n. 231/2001, che richiede una serie di elementi di natura oggettiva e soggettiva, rispetto ai quali opera una differenziazione della responsabilità dell’ente. Se il decreto n. 231 del 2001 si mostra completo sul versante della struttura dell’illecito, indicandone gli elementi costitutivi, seppur spesso non di univoca interpretazione, pare, di contro, trascurare la dimensione della punibilità, rilegata a talune previsioni inserite in ordine sparso senza alcun intervento sistematico. È previsto un articolato sistema sanzionatorio costruito secondo la logica trinaria delle sanzioni pecuniarie e delle sanzioni interdittive, il cui rapporto non si articola secondo la logica dell’accessorietà, a cui il d. lgs. n. 231/2001 affianca una serie di previsioni incidenti sul sistema della punibilità dell’ente. In particolare, si rivolge specifica attenzione a tutti gli indici di punibilità, come l’esimente di cui all’art. 6, la quale identifica un momento essenziale in quanto attribuisce valore di esonero della responsabilità all’efficace adozione e attuazione di modelli di prevenzione del reato, adottati mediante atti di autoregolamentazione. Nonché, alle vicende modificative dell’ente quali vicende che, oltre ad una immediata efficacia sulla struttura della societas, si riverberano sulle sanzioni a carico dell’ente con differente funzione e valore e con riguardo alle quali è necessario accertare una continuità di azione nel rispetto del principio di personalità. L’analisi delle vicende che decidono della dimensione punitiva dell’ente si completano con la disciplina processuale che già nel codice di rito da luogo ad una forma di contrattualizzazione della pena, nonché con quella disciplina che diverge significativamente dal processo a carico della persona fisica. Dopo aver esaminato gli indici di punibilità presenti nel d. lgs. n. 231/2001, la tesi si concentra nell’ultimo capitolo sull’analisi dei rapporti tra la punibilità del reato e la punibilità dell’ente, rispetto a cui si evidenzia in primo luogo una sorta di ‘deviazione prasseologica’. Rilevanza centrale assume il principio di autonomia della responsabilità dell’ente ex art. 8, che tende a rendere insensibile alle vicende della punibilità del reato l’illecito della persona giuridica, che rimane fermo nonostante la estinzione del reato presupposto, la mancata identificazione dell’autore ovvero il suo difetto di imputabilità. Nel corso di questa ultima parte, attenzionata la possibile interferenza tra disciplina del concorso eventuale di più persone nel reato e punibilità dell’ente, si analizzano i rapporti tra le singole cause di non punibilità codicistiche e la responsabilità della persona collettiva, rapporti che evidenziano una incomunicabilità tra reato ed ente, ad oggi non giustificabile. In particolare, si riscontra una certa insufficienza della disciplina recata dal d. lgs. n. 231/2001 dinnanzi ad un panorama normativo che ha arricchito l’arsenale della non punibilità del reato con la previsione dell’istituto della non punibilità per particolare tenuità del fatto, della messa alla prova, della collaborazione processuale, delle condotte riparatorie. Dinnanzi a tale mutato contesto normativo, pare ineludibile una compiuta riflessione intorno alla dimensione della punibilità dell’ente che possa condurre ad una successiva valorizzazione in sede di scelte legislative che arricchiscano la logica premiale a favore della persona giuridica, il cui ‘sforzo’ in termini di prevenzione del rischio merita di essere compensato sul versante della risposta sanzionatoria.

La responsabilità dell'ente dipendente da reato e la sua "punibilità" / Cristallino, Antonino. - (2021 Oct 25).

La responsabilità dell'ente dipendente da reato e la sua "punibilità"

CRISTALLINO, Antonino
2021-10-25

Abstract

This research thesis aims to analyze the dimension of punishment in d.lgs. n. 231/2001 through which the national legislator, urged by international pressure, overcomes the traditional dogma of the unaccountability of the legal person with the introduction and regulation of entity legal liability. It consists of a form of para-penal responsibility, which aroused several debates among the interpreters. In fact, the interpretation appears to be especially divided on the entity’s liability structure and, more in particular, on the corporate legal obligation on the occurrence of the same illicit act committed by a natural person, in the context of necessary multiple complicity in the offenses or of an autonomous offence, which is not identified with the predicate offence, but rather includes it. Indeed, it seems preferrable the qualification of autonomous offense of the entity responsibility, according to which the predicate offence constitutes the illegal act and it is therefore necessary to verify the adequacy of the prevention rule adopted in the context of compliance programs. It is ascribed to the entity an own fact of disorganization, to whom is predicable an authentic guilty judgment in form of subjective collectability that caused the crime event. This solution results from the acknowledgement of the para penal nature of the entity’s liability, which requires the enhancement of the guarantee claims related to the principle of guilt. Having thus identified the entity’s liability structure, we examine the individual constituent elements of the relative liability, set by the d.lgs. n. 231/2001. The latter requires a series of elements, characterized by objective and subjective nature, on whom it operates a differentiation of the entity's responsibility. Although it is not often possible to give a univocal interpretation, the decree of 2001 seems to be exhaustive in terms of structure of the illicit act, stating its constitutive elements, but, on the other hand, it neglects the dimension of punishment, limited to provisions lacking of a particular order or any systematic intervention. Furthermore, an articulated penalty system is envisaged, conceived following the trinary logic of pecuniary sanctions and disqualification sanctions with a double function to which d.lgs. n. 231/2001 binds a series of forecasting incidents on the entity’s punishment system. In particular, it focuses on indexes of punishment, such as the exemption of art. 6, which identify an essential moment in that attributes a disclaimer of liability value to the effective adoption and implementation of crime prevention models, adopted by acts of self-regulation. As well as, to the modifying events of the entity, which besides an immediate effectiveness on the structure of the societas, they reverberate on the actions charged to the entity with different function and value and, with respect to which, it is necessary to ascertain a continuity of action with respect for the personality principle. The analysis on the events that decide about the punitive dimension of the entity is completed with the procedural discipline which, already in the ritual code, give rise to a form of contractualization of the penalty, as well as with that discipline which significanty diverge from the criminal trial by the physical person. After analyzing the indices of punishment presented in the d.lgs. n. 231/2001, the closing chapter of the thesis concentrates on the analysis of the relationship between the punishment of the illegal act and the punishment of the entity, where it is possible to highlight a sort of "praxeological deviation". The principle of autonomy of the entity's liability pursuant to art. 8, which tends to make the offense of the legal person insensitive to the events of the punishment, which remains stationary despite of the extinction of the assumption crime, the failure author’s identity, or its lack of imputability. In this conclusive part of the thesis, having thus drawn attention to the likely interference between the discipline of the possible participation of more people in the illegal act and the punishable nature of the entity, we proceed to analyze the relationships between the individual causes of non-punishable code and the responsibility of the legal person, in which it is clear the lack of communication between the crime and the entity, currently not justifiable. In particular, a certain lack of discipline is brought by d.lgs. n. 231/2001 for what concerns the regulatory landscape. It enriched the arsenal on the non-punishability of the offence with the prediction of the entity of non-punishability for a particular non serious action, for the probation order, for the procedural collaboration and for the restorative conducts. Referring to a regulatory context which has changed so deeply, it seems unavoidable an utter consideration on the dimension of punishment of the entity, which could lead to a subsequent enhancement during legislative choices and the enrichment of the rewarding mechanism for the legal person. Indeed the “effort” in terms of risk prevention deserves to be compensate on the side of the sanction decision.
25-ott-2021
Settore IUS/17 - DIRITTO PENALE
D'ASCOLA, Vincenzo Mario Domenico
SELVAGGI, Nicola
SALAZAR, Carmela Maria Giustina
Doctoral Thesis
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Cristallino Antonino.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Tesi di dottorato
Licenza: DRM non definito
Dimensione 2.95 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.95 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12318/112130
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact