"Governance 231 and the Criminal Process"

On Nov. 14, 2025 at 3 p.m. in the Pessina Hall, the interdisciplinary conference "Governance 231 and the Criminal Process" will be held. After the welcome addresses by Professor Carla Masi Doria, director of the Department of Law, lawyer Carmine Foreste, president of the Naples Bar Council, and lawyer Marco Muscariello, president of the Criminal Chamber, lawyer Ettore Parlato, general counsel of Mediolanum Group, lawyer Paolo Mazza, chief general counsel Bper Banca S.p.A, Dr. Salvatore Dovere, section president of the Supreme Court, Professor Massimiliano Delfino, professor of labor law, Professor Renata Spagnuolo Vigorita, professor of administrative law, and Professor Clelia Iasevoli, professor of criminal procedural law.

The event originates from the belief that it is not possible to sanction the entity because of a "deviant business culture." It is necessary both the commission of an offense by an individual acting for the organization and the demonstration of a subjective element, namely, that the entity has failed to fulfill its organizational and managerial obligations. The company must have neglected to adopt and effectively implement those organizational models, control procedures and preventive measures that Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2001 provides for in Articles 6 and 7.

According to the jurisprudence of legitimacy, on the subject of the criminal liability of legal persons and companies, the phrase "in its interest or to its advantage" does not contain an endiad, as it is possible to distinguish an "upstream" interest as a result of an undue enrichment, foreshadowed and perhaps not realized, as a result of the offence, from an advantage objectively achieved by the commission of the offence, although not foreseen ex ante. The purpose of the assessment is to establish whether the individual's crime is the concretization of the risk that the violated organizational precautionary rule aimed to avoid or, at least, tended to make minimal; or, again, to ascertain that, if the suitable model had been complied with, the event would not have occurred.

But is the entity entitled to due process? And can the question inherent in the legal nature of its liability be considered settled? These and other questions will be the focus of the interdisciplinary discussion. distinguish an "upstream" interest as a result of undue enrichment, foreshadowed and perhaps not realized, as a result of the wrongdoing, from an advantage objectively achieved by the commission of the crime, albeit not foreseen ex ante. The purpose of the assessment is to establish whether the individual's crime is the concretization of the risk that the violated organizational precautionary rule aimed to avoid or, at least, tended to make minimal; or, again, to ascertain that, if the suitable model had been complied with, the event would not have occurred. But is the entity entitled to due process? And can the question inherent in the legal nature of its liability be considered settled? These and other questions will be the focus of the interdisciplinary discussion.