In relation to the system of corporate criminal liability under Legislative Decree No. 231/2001, a proposal is advanced to address the inherent critical issues that the category of organizational fault has revealed over time, by coordinating it with the novel version of reactive fault (which differs from the original elaborated by the Australian doctrine), focused on the duty to update compliance programs (organizational models). Specifically, through an argumentative path developed both de iure condito and de lege ferenda, the thesis is advanced that whenever the commission of the predicate offense reveals an organizational deficiency that cannot be imputed to the corporation under the category of organizational fault – due to the absence of the objective or subjective requirements of that form of fault – it is necessary to exclude any blame for the failure to prevent the individual offense. Consequently, the focus of the liability assessment must shift post factum, and the corporation should be held accountable under the framework of reactive fault, for its inadequate or failed response in managing the risk of repetition of the individual offence, where it is found that it failed to correct the identified compliance gap. This means safeguarding the duty to update compliance models through a risk-based offense, to be framed dogmatically according to the Pflichtdelikt paradigm, in order to preserve the legitimacy of the corporate liability system and simultaneously enhance its effectiveness.
In rapporto al sistema della responsabilità amministrativa da reato di cui al d.lgs. n. 231/2001, per rimediare ai profili di congenita criticità che la categoria della colpa di organizzazione ha rivelato nel tempo, si propone il suo coordinamento con l’inedita categoria della colpa di reazione, incentrata sul dovere di aggiornamento dei modelli organizzativi. Nello specifico, mediante un iter argomentativo che si sviluppa sia de iure condito che de lege ferenda, si avanza la tesi secondo cui, ogniqualvolta la commissione del reato-presupposto fa emergere un difetto organizzativo che non si può imputare all’ente a titolo di colpa di organizzazione per difetto della misura oggettiva o soggettiva di questa forma di colpa, si deve escludere il rimprovero per la mancata prevenzione dell’eventoreato; correlativamente occorre fare slittare post factum l’oggetto del giudizio di responsabilità e chiamare l’ente a rispondere a titolo di colpa di reazione per inadeguata o mancata gestione del rischio di reiterazione del reato, qualora si accerti che esso non ha provveduto a correggere la lacuna prevenzionistica emersa. Si tratta pertanto di presidiare il dovere di aggiornamento dei modelli organizzativi mediante un illecito di rischio, da inquadrare dogmaticamente secondo il paradigma del Pflichtdelikt, al fine di salvaguardare la legittimità del sistema di responsabilità da reato dell’ente e rilanciarne al contempo la funzionalità..
La colpa di reazione e il suo coordinamento con la colpa di organizzazione
Amalia Orsina
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
2025-01-01
Abstract
In relation to the system of corporate criminal liability under Legislative Decree No. 231/2001, a proposal is advanced to address the inherent critical issues that the category of organizational fault has revealed over time, by coordinating it with the novel version of reactive fault (which differs from the original elaborated by the Australian doctrine), focused on the duty to update compliance programs (organizational models). Specifically, through an argumentative path developed both de iure condito and de lege ferenda, the thesis is advanced that whenever the commission of the predicate offense reveals an organizational deficiency that cannot be imputed to the corporation under the category of organizational fault – due to the absence of the objective or subjective requirements of that form of fault – it is necessary to exclude any blame for the failure to prevent the individual offense. Consequently, the focus of the liability assessment must shift post factum, and the corporation should be held accountable under the framework of reactive fault, for its inadequate or failed response in managing the risk of repetition of the individual offence, where it is found that it failed to correct the identified compliance gap. This means safeguarding the duty to update compliance models through a risk-based offense, to be framed dogmatically according to the Pflichtdelikt paradigm, in order to preserve the legitimacy of the corporate liability system and simultaneously enhance its effectiveness.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.