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

    Illicit Influence Peddling (Art. 346-bis)

    Illicit influence peddling punishes those who, exploiting existing relationships with a public official or a person in charge of a public service, obtain or are promised money or other benefits as consideration for their illicit mediation. The offence is positioned at a stage prior to corruption and intervenes to repress conduct that improperly exploits relations with the public administration, even when the public official is not directly involved in the illicit pact.

    The Offence of Illicit Influence Peddling (Article 346-bis Criminal Code)

    Illicit influence peddling punishes those who, exploiting existing relationships with a public official or a person in charge of a public service, obtain or are promised money or other benefits as consideration for their illicit mediation. The offence is positioned at a stage prior to corruption and intervenes to repress conduct that improperly exploits relations with the public administration, even when the public official is not directly involved in the illicit pact.

    Defence method

    The defence is based on the reconstruction of the relationships between the parties involved and the analysis of the context in which interactions with the public administration occurred. In corporate criminal law, particular importance is given to the distinction between legitimate consultancy or intermediation activities and conduct actually aimed at exercising undue influence on administrative action.

    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