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

    Undue Induction (Art. 319-quater)

    Distinct from extortion is the hypothesis of undue induction, in which the public official or person in charge of a public service, abusing their position or powers, does not compel the private party but induces them to give or promise money or other benefits through less intense pressures or suggestive behaviour.

    Offence of Undue Induction to Give or Promise Benefits (Article 319-quater Criminal Code)

    Distinct from extortion is the hypothesis of undue induction, in which the public official or person in charge of a public service, abusing their position or powers, does not compel the private party but induces them to give or promise money or other benefits through less intense pressures or suggestive behaviour.

    In such situations, the private party retains a margin of self-determination and adheres to the undue request also with a view to obtaining a personal advantage. For this very reason, unlike extortion, the law also provides for the punishability of the person who gives or promises the benefit.

    In corporate criminal law, the offence assumes particular importance in relations between economic operators and public officials, especially in the context of administrative, authorisation or contractual procedures in which the public agent exercises a power capable of affecting the private party's economic decisions.

    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