This site uses technical and third-party cookies to improve your browsing experience. Learn more

    Corruption for Act Contrary to Duties (Art. 319)

    Corruption for an act contrary to official duties arises when a public official receives, for themselves or a third party, money or other benefits or accepts the promise thereof in exchange for the performance, omission or delay of an official act in violation of their duties. The offence represents the most serious form of corruption, as the illicit agreement concerns conduct by the public official directly contrary to the duties of the function exercised.

    Corruption for Act Contrary to Official Duties (Article 319 Criminal Code)

    Corruption for an act contrary to official duties arises when a public official receives, for themselves or a third party, money or other benefits or accepts the promise thereof in exchange for the performance, omission or delay of an official act in violation of their duties. The offence represents the most serious form of corruption, as the illicit agreement concerns conduct by the public official directly contrary to the duties of the function exercised.

    Defence method

    The defence is based on the reconstruction of the administrative dynamics and the decision-making process that led to the adoption of the contested act, in order to verify the actual existence of a corrupt agreement. In corporate criminal law, particular importance is given to the distinction between legitimate interaction with the public administration and conduct actually capable of constituting a corrupt pact, avoiding that normal institutional relations or discretionary decisions are improperly interpreted as indicators of criminal liability.

    Competenze correlate

    Bancarotta e Reati della Crisi d'ImpresaReati TributariReati PrevidenzialiResponsabilità Amministrativa degli Enti – D.Lgs. 231/2001Reati Societari, Finanziari e di MercatoRiciclaggio e Reati Economico Patrimoniali

    Approfondimenti correlati

    Reati contro la Pubblica AmministrazioneRiparazione pecuniaria dichiarata incostituzionale: la Corte cost. 108/2026 e l'art. 322 quater c.p.Commenti e novità giuridichePNRR e responsabilità penale nella fase di chiusura del piano: controlli, fattispecie e tutela preventiva dell'impresaEstradizioni e Mandati di ArrestoMandato di arresto europeo (MAE): radicamento in Italia e rifiuto della consegna

    Frequently asked questions about Crimes against the Public Administration

    What are the main crimes against the public administration relevant to businesses?
    The main offences are corruption for the exercise of functions (Art. 318), corruption for an act contrary to official duties (Art. 319), extortion by a public official (Art. 317), undue induction (Art. 319-quater), illicit influence peddling (Art. 346-bis), embezzlement (Art. 314) and abuse of office (Art. 323). In corporate criminal law, these offences assume importance when they arise in relations between economic operators and public officials.
    What is the difference between extortion by a public official and undue induction?
    Extortion (Art. 317) arises when the public official compels the private party with coercive conduct leaving no real alternative, making the private party the victim. Undue induction (Art. 319-quater) occurs when the official exerts less intense pressure, leaving the private party a margin of self-determination; in this case, the private party is also punishable.
    Can crimes against the public administration entail entity liability under Legislative Decree 231/2001?
    Yes, crimes against the public administration are among the predicate offences of Legislative Decree 231/2001. When unlawful conduct is committed in the interest or to the advantage of the entity, the company may be subject to significant pecuniary sanctions and interdictory measures such as suspension of activity and prohibition on contracting with the public administration.
    What is illicit influence peddling?
    Illicit influence peddling (Article 346-bis of the Criminal Code) punishes those who, claiming existing or apparent relations with a public official, seek or are given benefits in exchange for exercising such influence. Unlike corruption, it does not require a direct agreement with the public official. The defence verifies the actual claimed capacity for influence, the effective realisation of the conduct, and the distinction between lawful lobbying and criminally relevant conduct.
    How is a company defended against corruption charges in public procurement?
    In corruption proceedings related to public procurement, the defence of the entity and its director requires an in-depth analysis of how the contract was awarded, compliance of selection procedures, and documentation of relations with the public administration. It is essential to demonstrate the correctness of the procedural process and the absence of corrupt agreements, distinguishing normal commercial relations from criminally relevant conduct.

    Request a confidential consultation

    Every request is handled with the utmost discretion and professional confidentiality.

    All expertise areas