Court of Appeal of Milan: entrepreneur acquitted due to non-existence of the fact. What the "Trevisan" ruling teaches about testimonial evidence

THE JUDICIAL MATTER

The proceedings in question originate from a complaint filed in January 2016 by three employees of a cleaning company against their employer, who was accused of multiple episodes of aggravated sexual violence, both consummated and attempted, as well as personal injury.

The Court of Pavia, with a judgment dated February 6, 2020, had found the defendant guilty of five charges, classifying the facts as sexual violence aggravated by abuse of service and diminished defense, and ordered compensation for damages in favor of the civil parties.

The Court of Appeal of Milan, with a judgment dated June 17, 2021, in partial reform, had reduced the sentence to 7 years and 6 months, but confirmed the defendant's criminal liability.

Subsequently, the Court of Cassation (judgment no. 36542/2022) annulled the appellate judgment with remand, deeming the defense's complaints well-founded regarding the failure to renew the evidentiary hearing, in particular the exclusion of the technical party testimony (CTP) relating to phone records, and the superficiality of the assessment of the reliability of the injured parties.

The new trial, held before the Court of Appeal of Milan with a different composition, concluded with a judgment of acquittal due to non-existence of the fact (September 20, 2024).

REASONING AND PROFILES OF LEGAL INTEREST

The Court of Appeal based its decision on a careful examination of the evidentiary material, concluding that the statements of the civil parties did not pass the necessary reliability test required by constant jurisprudence for testimonial evidence from an injured party with an economic interest in the proceedings (Article 192, paragraphs 3-4 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure).

In particular, the Court highlighted:

• Numerous temporal inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies, which emerged in comparison with phone records and cell tower data, disproving the simultaneous presence of the defendant and the alleged victims in the indicated locations;
• Text communications (SMS and WhatsApp messages) between the defendant and employees that revealed an ambiguous and complex relational climate, in stark contrast to the image of an exclusively professional relationship interrupted by violence;
• The absence of objective clinical findings compatible with the reported dynamics;
• The suspicion of possible coordination among the alleged victims, generated both by the close timing of the complaints and by the testimony of third parties who reported previous interactions between the women.

According to the Court, the inconsistencies could not be overcome even in light of the state of emotional agitation manifested by the injured parties at the time of the complaint, an element not sufficient to remedy the evidentiary gaps.

The judgment also emphasizes the principle that the exclusive use of testimonial evidence requires a higher degree of coherence, precision, and logical corroboration, especially when there are external elements (technological, documentary, or indirect testimonies) that undermine its overall credibility.

CONCLUSION

The present ruling is part of a jurisprudential trend that requires trial judges to rigorously verify testimonial evidence, especially when it is the sole source of criminal liability.

For businesses, this case reinforces the need to:

• Maintain traceability and transparency in employment relationships;
• Prevent internal conflicts with adequate documentary and management tools;
• Promptly manage disputes with the assistance of specialized legal advice.