I. Overview and background: a long road to a common framework

On 26 March 2026, the European Parliament formally adopted the European Union’s first comprehensive anti-corruption directive — a landmark piece of criminal legislation that closes one of the most glaring gaps in the EU’s legal architecture (hereinafter, the “Directive”). The text was approved by 581 votes in favour, 21 against, and 42 abstentions, and had been provisionally agreed with the Council in December 2025 (1).

The context underscoring the urgency of this intervention is striking. According to a 2025 Eurobarometer, 69% of Europeans believe corruption to be widespread in their country, and 66% consider efforts against high-level corruption to be insufficient (1). Earlier EPRS studies estimated the total cost of corruption risk in EU public procurement alone at €29.6 billion between 2016 and 2021, with an additional €4.3 billion attributable to contracts involving EU funds. More broadly, Europol has reported that 71% of the most threatening criminal networks active in the EU use corruption to facilitate their activities or obstruct justice (2).

The path to the directive began on 3 May 2023, when the European Commission tabled an anti-corruption legislative package based on Article 83 TFEU — the provision empowering Parliament and the Council to establish minimum rules on criminal offences and sanctions in areas of particularly serious cross-border crime (1). The proposal followed calls by the European Parliament for EU-wide harmonisation of corruption offences and was shaped by the EU Security Union Strategy (2020–2025) and the EU Strategy to Tackle Organised Crime (2021–2025), which had tasked the Commission with assessing whether existing rules were adequate to address evolving criminal practices.

The pre-existing framework was acknowledged as fragmented. It consisted principally of Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on private-sector corruption, a 1997 Convention on corruption involving EU officials, and the PIF Directive (2017/1371) (2). A 2023 external study mandated by the European Commission confirmed that “the lack of a coherent European framework including provisions for all corruption-related crimes identified by international standards” constituted “a source for legislative and operational challenges in tackling cross-border corruption cases” (3). The Commission’s own questionnaires to Member States revealed wide divergence: definitions differed substantially, certain UNCAC-mandated offences were absent from national legislation, and limitation periods varied significantly (3).

Following the Commission proposal, the LIBE Committee of the European Parliament adopted its report in January 2024 with near-unanimous support. The Council agreed its general approach in June 2024, and trilogue negotiations concluded with a provisional agreement in December 2025. The Parliament gave its final endorsement on 26 March 2026 (4).

II. Key provisions and criminal offences

The Directive (5) establishes a catalogue of corruption-related offences that Member States are required to criminalise if committed intentionally. These include (Articles 3 to 11):

1. Public-sector bribery (active and passive): promising, offering, or granting an undue advantage to a public official, or a public official soliciting or accepting such an advantage, to perform or abstain from an act in the exercise of their functions;

2. Private-sector bribery (active and passive): the same conduct involving directors or employees of private entities, acting in breach of their professional duties within the context of economic or commercial activities;

3. Misappropriation: the use by a public official of assets entrusted to their management for a purpose other than that intended, to their benefit or that of a third party, or to the detriment of the relevant public or private entity;

4. Trading in influence: promising or granting an advantage to any person to exercise improper influence on a public official, irrespective of whether the influence was actually exerted or produced the intended result;

5. Unlawful exercise of public functions: intentional serious violations of the law committed by a public official in the exercise of their functions;

6. Obstruction of justice: use of violence, threats, or inducements to interfere with testimony, evidence, or the official functions of judicial or law-enforcement officers in proceedings related to corruption offences;

7. Enrichment from corruption offences: acquisition, possession, or use of assets by a public official in the knowledge that those assets derive from corruption offences committed by another public official;

8. Concealment: intentional disguise or concealment of the nature, origin, or movement of assets derived from the above offences.

9. Incitement, aiding and abetting, and attempt are also covered.

The Directive (Article 2) defines key concepts including “public official” (covering EU and national officials, persons performing public service functions, and officials of international organisations), as well as “high-level official” — a category encompassing heads of government, ministers, members of parliament, constitutional and supreme court judges, prosecutors-general, and members of the European Commission and European Parliament.

Member States retain the right to adopt stricter standards, seeing as the Directive establishes only minimum rules.

Sanctions for natural persons (Article 12) are tiered according to the gravity of the offence: a minimum maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment for public-sector bribery where the official’s act constitutes a breach of duty; at least four years for misappropriation, enrichment from corruption, and concealment; and at least three years for other offences, including private-sector bribery and trading in influence. Additional penalties may include fines, removal from public office, temporary disqualification from standing for election, exclusion from public procurement, and revocation of licences.

The Directive (Article 19) also harmonises limitation periods, requiring at least eight years from the commission of offences punishable by a maximum of at least four years’ imprisonment, and at least five years for less serious offences, with reduced minimum periods permissible only where interruption or suspension mechanisms exist.

Prevention obligations (Article 20 and following) require Member States to adopt national anti-corruption strategies, establish independent anti-corruption bodies, introduce asset disclosure mechanisms for public officials, regulate conflicts of interest and “revolving doors”, and conduct periodic risk assessments by sector. Whistleblower protection under Directive (EU) 2019/1937 is expressly extended to reports of corruption offences under this Directive (Article 25). Enhanced cooperation between national authorities and EU bodies — including OLAF, Eurojust, Europol, and the EPPO — is also mandated (Article 32).

III. Sanctions for legal persons: the turnover-based fine model and its broader context

One of the most significant innovations of the Directive lies in its approach to the liability and sanctioning of legal persons. Member States must ensure that companies can be held liable for corruption offences committed for their benefit by persons in a leading position, or where inadequate supervision by such persons enabled the commission of the offence (Article 13).

Sanctions must be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. Beyond fines, they may include exclusion from public procurement, suspension from business activities, judicial winding-up, and publication of the judgment (Article 14).

The headline provision, however, concerns the calibration of pecuniary sanctions. For the most serious offences — public-sector bribery, private-sector bribery, and misappropriation (Articles 3 to 5) — the maximum fine must reach at least 5% of the legal person’s total worldwide annual turnover in the preceding financial year, or alternatively €40 million in absolute terms. For trading in influence, obstruction of justice, and enrichment from corruption (Articles 6, 8, 9), the threshold is set at 3% of global turnover or €24 million.

This turnover-based mechanism represents a structural break from the traditional Italian framework under Legislative Decree 8 June 2001, no. 231 (hereinafter, the “231 Decree”), which determines corporate sanctions through a “quotas” system: the judge fixes the number of units (quote) — between 100 and 1,000 — and the monetary value of each unit — between €258 and €1,549 — resulting in a maximum fine of approximately €1.55 million for corruption offences under Article 25 of the 231 Decree (6). While this system allows for a degree of judicial discretion calibrated to the gravity of the offence and the entity’s degree of responsibility, it was not designed to scale with the actual size or financial capacity of large multinationals.

The turnover-based model, by contrast, ensures that the sanction bears a direct and proportionate relationship to the economic weight of the offending entity — a principle that resonates with the regulatory logic already adopted in other European instruments. Most notably, Legislative Decree 30 December 2025, no. 211 — the Italian Decree implementing Directive (EU) 2024/1226 on criminal penalties for violations of EU restrictive measures — introduced a new Article 25-octies.2 into the 231 Decree, expressly providing for fines calculated as a percentage of the global annual turnover of the offending entity (7). Under that regime, fines range from 1% to 5% of global turnover for the most serious violations (or €3 million to €40 million where turnover cannot be determined), and from 0.5% to 1% for less serious ones (or €1 million to €8 million as an alternative).

The EU anti-corruption Directive now introduces a parallel and closely analogous structure. The alignment between the two instruments is deliberate: both reflect the EU legislator’s evolving preference for sanctions that penalise conduct in proportion to the economic capacity of the offender, thereby addressing the risk that fixed-sum fines may be absorbed as a ‘cost of doing business’ by large corporations. The same philosophy underpins the GDPR (fines up to 4% of global annual turnover), the Digital Markets Act, and various other EU sectoral regulations.

From an Italian implementation standpoint, the transposition of the Directive will require to amend Article 25 of the 231 Decree, which currently governs corporate liability for corruption-related offences. The existing quota-based system will need to be either replaced or supplemented by a turnover-referencing mechanism to achieve compliance with the Directive’s minimum standards. 

From a corporate compliance perspective, the said directives make it critical for companies to promptly recalibrate their trade compliance and anti-bribery and corruption (ABAC) frameworks. The shift to turnover-based corporate fines  substantially increases the (also, financial) exposure attached to corruption risks and makes “static” control systems harder to defend as effective. In practical terms, this calls for an immediate refresh of risk assessments (including sectoral and geographic corruption risks, public-touchpoints, and third-party channels), tighter third‑party due diligence and ongoing monitoring, strengthened controls over gifts/hospitality, sponsorships, facilitation-risk, and conflicts of interest (including revolving-door scenarios), and testing of reporting/escalation mechanisms (also in light of the Directive’s express linkage to the EU whistleblowing framework). 

For Italian entities subject to the 231 Decree, transposition will likely require a targeted update of the so-called Model 231 (compliance program). Companies that treat the Directive as a “legislative update” rather than a compliance redesign risk finding that their Model 231 is no longer viewed as adequately implemented or effective when scrutinized by prosecutors and courts.

The Directive now awaits formal adoption by the Council of the EU, after which it will enter into force 20 days following publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (1). Member States will have between 24 and 36 months from entry into force (depending on the obligations concerned) to transpose the Directive.

Bibliography

(1) europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20260323IPR38831/parliament-greenlights-eu-anti-corruption-rules

(2) EPRS_BRI(2024)762406_EN.pdf, P. 2

(3) EPRS_BRI(2024)762406_EN.pdf, P. 5

(4) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-new-era-for-european-defence-and-security/file-directive-on-combating-corruption

(5) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-10-2026-0094_EN.html

(6)  https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2001-06-08;231

(7) www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls=

The Measure is divided into three parts. Part One sets out the principles and rules governing active cooperation, outlining the stages involved in the identification and assessment of anomalies, the operational instructions for submitting suspicious transaction reports (“STRs”), the rules governing the suspension of transactions, and the procedures through which the FIU provides feedback on the outcome of reports. Part Two introduces provisions on organisational requirements applicable to entities not subject to supervision by sectoral supervisory authorities. Finally, Part Three sets out the procedures for accessing the Infostat-FIU portal and provides instructions for completing and submitting STRs.

With particular regard to the principles of active cooperation, the Measure places greater emphasis on the quality, rather than the quantity, of reporting flows. An STR is, in fact, the outcome of an assessment process carried out by the reporting entity, beginning with the identification of customer-related and customer-related anomalies, which must be assessed in light of the information available and the customer’s profile. The Measure expressly excludes automatic or purely precautionary approaches: the mere exceeding of quantitative thresholds, the receipt of requests for information, the existence of adverse information concerning the individual, or the imposition of personal or asset-related measures does not, in themselves, constitute sufficient grounds for submitting an STR.

The assessment process may legitimately conclude with the exclusion of suspicion; in such cases, there is no obligation to submit a report. However, the reporting entity is encouraged to document, even briefly, the reasons supporting that decision, in order to ensure traceability in the event of subsequent checks.

Among the most significant elements introduced by the Measure, the following are worth noting.

Artificial intelligence. The Measure expressly recognises the possibility of using tools based on artificial intelligence systems to identify anomalous transactions. Where such tools are used, they must comply with applicable statutory provisions, be based on objective and verifiable data, and be accompanied by appropriate human oversight, aimed at verifying and validating the anomalies identified. Although the use of artificial intelligence is approached with caution, its explicit recognition in the Measure opens the way for potential applications in areas that have so far been largely unexplored, further highlighting the regulatory challenges arising from technological developments.

Sharing of information between reporting entities. The Measure introduces the possibility for obliged entities to share information regarding identified anomalies in relation to transactions that have common elements, in compliance with the secrecy  and confidentiality obligations set out in Legislative Decree 231/2007.

FIU feedback. The system for communicating the outcomes of reports has been strengthened: the FIU will provide reporting entities, at least every six months, with specific feedback on the quality of the active cooperation provided by obliged entities, distinguishing between reports lacking sufficient risk indicators to support suspicion (so-called “List A”) and reports classified as low-risk (so-called “List B”). Obliged entities are required to take these findings into account in order to progressively refine their internal processes.

Through the feedback form, the FIU also provides, at least once a year, summary assessments of the reporting entity’s active cooperation. This form is sent to entities that submitted a significant number of reports during the relevant calendar year.

Suspension of transactions. The reporting entity may submit an STR to the FIU, requesting the FIU to consider exercising its suspension powers, by submitting the STR with the appropriate flag enabled. The suspension may last for a maximum of five working days from serving the relevant measure via certified email.

As noted above, the second part of the Regulation is devoted to organisational requirements.

In particular, the role of the STR contact person is formally regulated. Where the addressee is not a natural person, this role must be identified on the Infostat-FIU portal as the legal representative or a delegate appointed by them, provided that such delegate meets the required standards of independence, authority and professionalism. Delegates may not be external to the reporting entity or the group to which they belong, nor hold responsibility for the internal audit function.

As regards the internal reporting procedure, it must be proportionate to the size and complexity of the obliged entity and ensure effectiveness, timeliness and confidentiality. The decision to submit an STR and the transmission of the report to the FIU may not be outsourced.

Finally, the last part of the Measure is devoted to reporting procedures. STRs must be submitted exclusively via the Infostat-FIU portal and must include: identifying details, structured information relating to transactions, parties and relationships, and a free-text description of the suspicious transaction and the grounds for suspicion. The descriptive section must not be limited to a mere reference to the FIU indicators of anomaly or standard templates, but must clearly set out the logical and deductive reasoning followed by the reporting entity.

In conclusion, the Measure comprehensively redefines the obligation to report suspicious transactions referred to in Articles 35 et seq. of Legislative Decree 231/2007, reinforcing an approach based on the accountability of obliged entities and the quality of active cooperation.

The new guidelines entail a number of operational implications that are particularly significant for regulated entities.

Firstly, the Measure reinforces the central role of the internal assessment process, ruling out automatic or purely precautionary approaches. This requires obliged entities to implement adequate internal procedures capable of enabling an effective assessment of anomalies in light of the customer’s profile, the nature of the transaction and its overall context.

Secondly, the introduction of explicit references to the use of artificial intelligence tools forms part of an increasingly evident trend at both national and European level, aimed at promoting the use of advanced technological solutions, whilst preserving the principle of the reporting entity’s decision-making responsibility. The use of artificial intelligence cannot replace the assessment process required under anti-money laundering legislation, but it can support the identification and management of anomalies, particularly in contexts characterised by a high transaction volume or complex transaction patterns.

In this context, compliance with the new guidance goes beyond a mere formal update of procedures; it requires a comprehensive review of anti-money laundering controls, including – inter alia – the implemntation of internal reporting procedures, the identification of the STR contact person, the updating of anomaly management policies and the training of staff involved in operations.

With the new instructions due to enter into force on 1 July 2026, it is therefore advisable for obliged entities to begin reviewing their anti-money laundering compliance frameworks without delay, in order to ensure full alignment with the new regulatory framework and mitigate the operational and reputational risks associated with the handling of suspicious transactions.

The introduction of the new provisions represents an opportunity to strengthen existing safeguards and adapt them to ongoing regulatory and technological developments affecting the sector.

Raffaella Quintana is a partner and Head of White-Collar Crime, Investigation and Compliance at ADVANT Nctm. More than 35 years ago, when she built the first criminal law team inside a large Italian multi-practice firm, she had to make two arguments simultaneously: the legal one and the cultural one. The legal argument was technical. The cultural argument was harder, persuading partners and clients that business criminal law was not a niche for handling emergencies but a fundamental governance discipline, one that belongs in the room where strategy is made, not called in after the damage is done. That argument is now settled. What she continues to build is the architecture around it.

Read the full interview on Leaders League website

1. The current framework of sanctions

• any person who has not tested positive for COVID-19 and who breaches one of the numerous containment measures provided for in the legislation, shall be subject to the following administrative sanctions, unless the incident constitutes an offence:
  • Administrative pecuniary sanction from €400.00 to €3,000.00

The aforementioned sanction will be increased by up to 1/3 in the case of breaches committed using a vehicle. The fine will be reduced by 30% if payment is made within 5 days of notification or service taking place. Moreover, the fine will be doubled in case of repeated violations.

• any person who has already tested positive for COVID-19 and who breaches “the absolute prohibition to leave one’s home or residence imposed on people under quarantine because they have tested positive for the virus” commits the following criminal offences:
  • Article 452, paragraph 2, No. 2 of the Italian Criminal Code: “Culpable crimes against public health”; a type of offence punished with imprisonment from 1 to 5 years for anyone who commits, by negligence, any of the offences provided for by Articles 438 and 439 of the Italian Criminal Code, including the offence of causing an epidemic.

In the alternative:

• • Article 260, Royal Decree No. 1265 of 27 July 1934: “Anyone who fails to observe a legal order issued to prevent the invasion or spread of an infectious human disease is punished with imprisonment from 3 to 18 months and a fine from €500 to €5,000”. For the specific circumstances, said criminal offence has been amended by Article 4, paragraph 7, of the abovementioned decree.

In addition, the various emergency measures, besides providing for containment measures and related sanctions against natural persons, have, as is well known, placed restrictions on certain activities.This line has been followed, with some flexibility, also by the most recent measure dated 26 April 2020, which still maintains the accessory administrative sanction of the closure of business or activity from 5 to 30 days - already contemplated by Decree Law No. 19 of 25 March 2020 - for those failing to comply with the measures. The sanction in question can also be applied provisionally, when finding the violation, for a period not exceeding 5 days, which will be subsequently deducted from the administrative sanction finally imposed. In case of multiple violations, the sanction at issue will be applied to the maximum extent.With regard to the measures most recently adopted, the D.P.C.M. of 26 April 2020 essentially remained along the lines of the previous legislation.Indeed, to date, cinemas, theatres, amusement arcades, bingo halls, discos and similar establishments continue to remain closed; nothing has changed also for gyms, sports centres, swimming pools, wellness and spa centres, schools, kindergartens and ski resorts. Banking, financial and insurance services are guaranteed at all times, subject to compliance with health and hygiene regulations.With regard to retail trade, meaning both small shops and medium and large scale retailers, the latest decree has listed once again in the specific “Annex 1” the activities considered as essential and thus not subject to suspension, which almost entirely coincide with those indicated in the previous measures. Commercial establishments included in the list are, however, required to ensure distancing, regulated entry and to reduce dwell times to a minimum.On the other hand, there are some novelties in the catering sector, where in addition to home delivery - already permitted by law - take-away catering will be allowed, subject, of course, to compliance with hygiene and health regulations and maintaining a social distance of one metre, in addition to the prohibition of consumption inside and lingering outside the premises.Finally, with particular regard to production and commercial activities, Article 2 of the new measure refers to its Annex No. 3 for a list of all activities exempt from the general obligation of suspension on the entire national territory. Nonetheless, said activities are required to comply with the various “anti – COVID” protocols signed and attached to the measure, under penalty of suspension of the activity until safety conditions are restored. Suspended activities may still be organized through remote and agile working. It is important to point out that activities that are about to reopen on 4 May may carry out all pre-reopening requirements already from 27 April.With regard to professional activities, Article 1, paragraph 1, letter ii), of the D.P.C.M. of 26 April 2020, following exactly what was stated in the previous legislation, has recommended that:a) the maximum use of agile working methods be implemented for activities that can be carried out at home or at a distance;b) paid holidays and paid leave for employees as well as the other instruments provided for by collective bargaining agreements be encouraged;c) anti-infection safety protocols be put in place and, where it is not possible to respect the interpersonal distance of one metre as the main containment measure, individual protection devices be adopted;d) workplace sanitation be encouraged, also using forms of social shock absorbers for this purpose.So, there is no suspension in professional activities, but simple recommendations aimed at avoiding risks of infection.

2. Inter – temporal law profiles

• For infringements detected before the entry into force of Decree Law No. 19 of 25 March 2020: Administrative pecuniary sanction of €200, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 8, which provides for the application of the current minimum administrative sanction reduced by half. The incident does not constitute an offence under Article 650 of the Italian Criminal Code.
• Infringements detected after the entry into force of the Decree: Administrative and criminal sanctions provided for by paragraph 2.

3. Measures in the justice field

Procedural deadlines:

• Article 36 of Decree Law No. 23 of 8 April 2020 extended the suspension of deadlines for any actions until 11 May 2020, by intervening on Article 83, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Decree Law No. 18 of 17 March 2020, which provided for suspension until 15 April 2020.
• Therefore, all deadlines concerning: preliminary investigations, adoption of judicial measures and filing of the relevant reasons, appeals and procedural deadlines in general are to be considered suspended.
• If a deadline starts running during the suspension period, the starting period shall be postponed to the end of the suspension period. Conversely, if the deadline is counted backwards and falls in whole or in part in the suspension period, the hearing or action from which the deadline begins shall be postponed so that the deadline is respected.

Postponement of hearings:

• Article 36 of Decree Law No. 23 of 8 April 2020 has also provided for the automatic postponement of civil and criminal hearings to a date following 11 May 2020, a deadline that has been extended too with respect to the initial one of 15 April 2020.

Exceptions to the suspension of deadlines and postponement of hearings:

• The suspension of procedural deadlines and the rules governing the automatic postponement of hearings SHALL NOT APPLY to proceedings:
  • for the confirmation of arrest or detention;
  • in which the deadlines referred to in Article 304 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure expire during the period of suspension;
  • in which custodial security measures have been applied or requested.

• It will also be possible, at the request of the accused or the defence counsels, to hold hearings in proceedings:
  • against detainees, except in cases of precautionary suspension of alternative measures, pursuant to Article 51 - ter of Law No. 354 of 26 July 1975;
  • in which precautionary or security measures have been applied;
  • for the application of preventive measures or in which preventive measures have been ordered.
• A further exception is provided for proceedings having an urgent nature, due to the need to acquire non-deferrable evidence, in the cases referred to in Article 392 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. The declaration of urgency shall be made by the judge or the Chairman of the panel, at the request of the party, by means of a reasoned and unappealable decision.

N.B.: The extension of the suspension of deadlines and the postponement of hearings until 11 May 2020 shall not apply to proceedings in which the deadlines provided for by Article 304 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure expire in the six months following the date of 11 May 2020, pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 2, of Decree Law of 8 April 2020.

Measures for judicial activity not subject to suspension or occurring after 12 May 2020:

• With regard to judicial activity not subject to suspension and to the activity included in the period 12 May 2020 - 30 June 2020, the respective judicial offices may:
  • Restrict access to judicial offices
  • Limit opening hours to the public
  • Arrange a booking service to access the services
  • Adopt binding guidelines for the holding of hearings
  • Hold hearings in camera or remote hearings
• With exclusive reference to the judicial activity included in the period from 12 May 2020 to 30 June 2020, the respective judicial offices may decide to further postpone hearings to a date after 30 June 2020, with the exception of those hearings mentioned in paragraph 3 of Article 83 Decree Law No. 18 of 17 March 2020.BY ORDER NO. 56/2020 DATED 10 APRIL, THE COURT OF MILAN ANNOUNCED ITS PREFERENCE FOR THIS APPROACH.

Suspension of limitation periods and other deadlines:

• In proceedings in which the suspension of time limits (until 11 May 2020) has been applied, the statute of limitations as well as the expiry of pre-trial detention deadlines are also suspended.
• In the event of a further postponement of the hearing to a date after 30 June 2020:
  • the statute of limitations;
  • the expiry of the deadlines provided for in Articles 303 (maximum duration of pre-trial detention), 308 (maximum duration of other coercive/disqualifying measures), 309, paragraph 9 (deadline to decide on the request for review of coercive measures), 311, paragraphs 5 and 5-bis (30-day deadline for the decision of the Supreme Court and 10-day deadline for the referring court), 324, paragraph 7 (deadline for the decision of the court of review), of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure;
  • the expiry of the deadlines provided for in Articles 24, paragraph 2 and 27, paragraph 6 of the Anti-Mafia Cod, with regard to confiscation

will be suspended for said additional period, but in any case not later than 30 June.

Measures for the participation in hearings of detained defendants:

• Pursuant to Article 83, paragraph 12, of Legislative Decree No. 18 of 17 March 2020, participation in hearings by defendants detained, interned or remanded in custody will be ensured via videoconference or via remote connection, without prejudice to the application of Article 472, paragraph 3, of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

In addition to said tools, the DGSIA of the Ministry of Justice has also provided for the use of applications such as “TEAMS” and “SKYPE FOR BUSINESS”.In the case of hearings that can be held upon request, the Court of Milan has indicated that the request for the hearing to be held must be lodged by the accused or their defendants within 5 days before the date of the hearing in order to make arrangements for the remote participation of the accused.To avoid the risk of infection, hearings of oral arguments will be held in camera. This article is for information purposes only and is not, and cannot be intended as, a professional opinion on the topics dealt with. For further information please contact your counsel or send an email to Roberta Guaineri.