institutions for a long time, were not considered imputabili.Tale orientation arose aversion on the part of Enlightenment thinkers, for the prosecution authorities, as for many centuries had been considered to be related and, not infrequently , were exempted bull of excommunication against entire cities.
With the Enlightenment, it was considered that this legal situation was resolved, therefore, was developed the principle societas delinquere non potest . This assumption was questioned already in the period of the industrial revolution, since in case of accidents by pursuing the person in charge of managing or all’amministrazione dell’ente, molto spesso, le vittime non riuscivano ad ottenere un ristoro.
La dottrina successivamente cercò di elaborare alcuni criteri al fine di poter processare gli enti, tra queste assunse notevole rilievo la teoria organicistica ( di matrice tedesca ), in base ad essa l’ente è responsabile, nonostante sia una fictio iuris, giacché il reato è stato posto in essere da un suo organo mediante il quale essa agisce e che persegue la politica d’impresa, di conseguenza l’ente risponde per il fatto altrui.
La propulsione decisiva per la codificazione di una responsabilità degli enti venne given by the European Union in order to reduce fraud offenses urged member states to crystallize the rules to prevent such conduct. Italy with Legislative Decree no. 231 of 2001 introduced administrative liability. All ' art. 1 , the provision, it is determined that recipients are entities established under private law and without legal personality. L ' art. 2, Leg. 231/2001 refers to the principle of legality and legal reservation. L ' art. 4 provides that in the cases and conditions provided for in Articles 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Criminal Code, the entities in the State with its principal place of meeting in relation ai reati commessi all'estero, purché nei loro confronti non proceda lo Stato del luogo in cui e' stato commesso il fatto. Al secondo comma invece viene stabilito che nei casi in cui la legge prevede che il colpevole sia punito a richiesta del Ministro della giustizia, si procede contro l'ente solo se la richiesta e' formulata anche nei confronti di quest'ultimo. L'ente, inoltre, e' responsabile per i reati commessi nel suo interesse o a suo vantaggio:
a) da persone che rivestono funzioni di rappresentanza, di amministrazione o di direzione dell'ente o di una sua unita' organizzativa dotata di autonomia finanziaria e funzionale nonche' da persone che esercitano, anche di fatto, la gestione e il controllo dello stesso;
b) da persone subject to the direction or supervision of a person referred to in subparagraph a) ( art. 5, Leg. 231/2001). The body does not respond if the persons referred to in paragraph 1 acted solely in the interests of third parties ( art. 5, paragraph 2, Leg. 231/2001).
a) da persone che rivestono funzioni di rappresentanza, di amministrazione o di direzione dell'ente o di una sua unita' organizzativa dotata di autonomia finanziaria e funzionale nonche' da persone che esercitano, anche di fatto, la gestione e il controllo dello stesso;
b) da persone subject to the direction or supervision of a person referred to in subparagraph a) ( art. 5, Leg. 231/2001). The body does not respond if the persons referred to in paragraph 1 acted solely in the interests of third parties ( art. 5, paragraph 2, Leg. 231/2001).
if the crime 'was committed by the persons designated in Article 5, paragraph 1, letter a), the entity is not liable if he proves that:
a) the governing body has adopted and effectively implemented, prior to commission of the models of organization and management required to prevent crimes similar to what occurred;
b) the task of overseeing the functioning and compliance models updating them and 'entity was entrusted to a body with independent powers of initiative and control
c) persons who committed the crime by fraudulently evading the models of organization and management;
d) there is' been omitted or insufficient supervision by the body referred to in subparagraph b) ( art. 6, Leg. 231/2001).
a) the governing body has adopted and effectively implemented, prior to commission of the models of organization and management required to prevent crimes similar to what occurred;
b) the task of overseeing the functioning and compliance models updating them and 'entity was entrusted to a body with independent powers of initiative and control
c) persons who committed the crime by fraudulently evading the models of organization and management;
d) there is' been omitted or insufficient supervision by the body referred to in subparagraph b) ( art. 6, Leg. 231/2001).
In relation to the extension of delegated powers and the risk of committing crimes, the models referred to in subparagraph a) of subsection 1, must meet the following requirements:
a) identify the activities' in which they can crimes to be committed;
b) specific protocols aimed at planning the formation and implementation of decisions of the institutions in relation to the crimes to be prevented;
c) identify ways' of managing financial resources in order to prevent the commission of crimes;
d) ensure that the information in the body in charge to monitor the operation and compliance with the models;
e) establish a disciplinary system to sanction non-compliance with measures specified in the model ( art. 6, paragraph 2, Leg. 231/2001).
a) identify the activities' in which they can crimes to be committed;
b) specific protocols aimed at planning the formation and implementation of decisions of the institutions in relation to the crimes to be prevented;
c) identify ways' of managing financial resources in order to prevent the commission of crimes;
d) ensure that the information in the body in charge to monitor the operation and compliance with the models;
e) establish a disciplinary system to sanction non-compliance with measures specified in the model ( art. 6, paragraph 2, Leg. 231/2001).
models of organization and management can be adopted, ensuring the requirements of paragraph 2, on the basis of codes of conduct drawn up by the associations representing local, press the Ministry of Justice, in consultation with the appropriate ministries, can 'formulate, within thirty days, comments on the suitability' of the models to prevent crimes. ( art. 6, paragraph 3, law no. 231/2001). In small organizations the tasks specified in the letter b) of paragraph 1 may be carried out directly by the body ruling ( art. 6, paragraph 4, of Legislative Decree no. 231/2001). It 'still the confiscation of the profit that the institution has taken from the crime, even in the form equivalent to ( art. 6, paragraph 5, Legislative Decree no. 231/2001).
In regard to this discipline is necessary to make some clarifications. First, il legislatore ha utilizzato il termine “amministrativa” , tuttavia, sia i principi richiamati dalla suddetta legge, sia le sanzioni limitative della libertà personale, consentono di desumere che si tratti di una responsabilità penale . Ad avallare tale assunto l’ art. 34 , della norma in parola, che dispone, in questa materia, l’applicazione delle norme del codice di procedura penale.
Ai fini meramente civilistici è stata pronunciata, recentemente, una sentenza interessante dal Tribunale di Milano, il quale ha sancito la responsabilità aquiliana dell’amministratore delegato di un s.p.a. per mala gestio , because he had failed to adopt an organizational model appropriate to prevent crimes in place in the concrete situation (1) .
L ' art. 2392 cc , governs the liability of directors from the company, they must fulfill the duties imposed upon them by law and by statute with the diligence required by the nature of and their specific skills. It constitutes an obligation and not a result, the care that is required is the professional within the meaning of ' art. 1776, comma 2, cc (2) . They are jointly responsible to the company for damage caused by disregard of such duties, except in the case of attributions of the Executive Committee or functions specifically assigned to one or more directors.
In any case the Directors, subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 2381, are jointly and severally liable if, being aware of prejudicial , they did what they could to prevent the perpetration or eliminate or mitigate the harmful consequences ( art. 2392, comma 2, cc ).
The responsibility for the acts or omissions of amministratori non si estende a quello tra essi che, essendo immune da colpa , abbia fatto annotare senza ritardo il suo dissenso nel libro delle adunanze e delle deliberazioni del consiglio, dandone immediata notizia per iscritto al presidente del collegio sindacale ( art. 2392, comma 3, c.c. ).
NOTE:
(1) Trib. Milano, sez. VIII civ., 13 febbraio 2008, n. 1774, tratto da BATTISTI, Responsabilità civile degli amministratori per mancata adozione del Modello ex D.Lgs. 231/01 , in Compliance Aziendale , http://www.complianceaziendale.com/2009/03/responsabilita-civile-degli.html
(2) GALGANO, Diritto commerciale. Le società. Zanichelli, Bologna, 2009, pg. 329
si 
0 comments:
Post a Comment