Fraudulent Documentary Bankruptcy: Acquittal by the Milan Court of Appeal

Fraudulent Documentary Bankruptcy: Acquittal Due to Insufficient Evidence

The judgment delivered by the Milan Court of Appeal on May 8, 2025, represents a particularly significant ruling in the matter of fraudulent documentary bankruptcy, both for the rigorous application of Article 192, paragraph 3, of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, and for the accurate verification of the evidentiary structure of the so-called accomplice's testimony.

The Panel, in fact, fully overturned the conviction pronounced by the Court of Milan (judgment no. 12486/2023), issuing an acquittal for not having committed the act, deeming the evidentiary threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" not to have been met.

In litigation for fraudulent documentary bankruptcy, the ascertainment of the concealment of accounting records requires a particularly rigorous evidentiary framework.

The Principle of Law: Accomplice Testimony Without Corroboration is Not Sufficient

The motivational core of the decision is based on the application of Article 192, paragraph 3, of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. When criminal liability is based on an accomplice's testimony, it is necessary that the accusatory statement be corroborated by external and individualizing evidence.

In the present case:

• The accusation of being the "instigator" of the documentary concealment was based exclusively on the statements made in court by co-defendant L.V.;
• These statements were partially divergent from the version originally given to the bankruptcy trustee;
• There was a lack of objective elements capable of confirming the charge.

The Court therefore reaffirmed a fundamental principle in trials for fraudulent documentary bankruptcy: criminal liability cannot be affirmed on the basis of a single accusatory statement lacking adequate evidentiary corroboration.

Documentary Bankruptcy and Proof of the Typical Fact

The charge concerned the alleged concealment of the company's accounting records through a theft report deemed simulated. The Court highlighted a passage of particular systematic importance: the qualification of de facto director can be the subject of autonomous ascertainment, but this qualification does not automatically entail responsibility for documentary concealment.

Instead, concrete proof of participation in the act is necessary. In bankruptcy criminal law, the subjective position cannot replace proof of the typical conduct.

Specific Intent and Motivational Burden in Bankruptcy Crimes

The defense had also criticized the first-instance decision for lack of motivation regarding the specific intent required by Article 216, paragraph 1, no. 2 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law.

The Court, while considering the evidentiary insufficiency to be absorbing, implicitly valued a central principle in the jurisprudence on fraudulent documentary bankruptcy crimes:

• Specific intent cannot be presumed from mere managerial irregularity;
• Documentary concealment must be proven in its concrete attribution to the accused;
• Suspicion cannot replace proof.

Practical Implications in Bankruptcy Proceedings

The decision assumes particular importance for entrepreneurs and administrators involved in proceedings for:

• Fraudulent documentary bankruptcy;
• Destruction or concealment of accounting records;
• Liability of the de facto director;
• Disputes related to bankruptcies declared at the request of the Treasury.

In bankruptcy litigation in Milan, this ruling demonstrates that technical defense on evidence is crucial, the correct management of the trial phase can overturn a conviction, and the critical analysis of co-defendants' statements is central in trials for bankruptcy crimes.

Control over Circumstantial Evidence in Bankruptcy Crimes

The Milan Court of Appeal reaffirmed a fundamental principle in economic criminal law: in bankruptcy crimes, circumstantial evidence must be serious, precise, and consistent. The logical reconstruction of the accusation cannot compensate for the lack of evidentiary corroboration.

In a context where charges for fraudulent documentary bankruptcy are often based on:

1. Reports from the bankruptcy trustee;
2. Presumptive reconstructions of corporate management;
3. Interconnections between de jure and de facto directors,

this ruling reiterates the centrality of the evidentiary method and the trial instruction.

Defense in Fraudulent Bankruptcy Proceedings in Milan

In corporate criminal law, the difference between conviction and acquittal in trials for fraudulent documentary bankruptcy often lies in the realm of evidence. A specialized criminal defense allows for:

• Verifying the evidentiary strength of the accusatory framework;
• Analyzing the consistency of co-defendants' statements;
• Challenging the presumptive reconstruction of the insolvency;
• Demonstrating the absence of specific intent.

In bankruptcy proceedings in Milan, the setting of the defense strategy from the early stages of the investigation can significantly influence the outcome of the trial.