False Invoices and Multiple Representation: The Court of Cassation and the Plurality of Offenses (Judgment no. 31850/2025)

In the dynamic landscape of Italian tax criminal law, the Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 31850 filed on September 24, 2025, addressed a matter of crucial importance for entrepreneurs and professionals: the configuration of offenses for issuing invoices or other documents for non-existent transactions when a single individual acts as the legal representative of multiple companies. This ruling, which partially annuls with referral a decision by the Court of Appeal of Milan, offers significant food for thought on individual and corporate liability, outlining stricter boundaries for the prevention of tax offenses.

The Context: A Single Representative, Different Entities

The case examined concerned the defendant S. T., accused of issuing invoices for non-existent transactions. The peculiarity was that S. T. held the role of legal representative for several legal entities. The central question was whether such conduct, even if carried out by the same individual, should constitute a single continuing offense or, conversely, a plurality of distinct offenses, one for each company involved. The Court of Cassation deemed a review necessary, overcoming the interpretation of the Court of Appeal.

The Ruling of Judgment no. 31850/2025: Clarity on the Plurality of Offenses

With judgment no. 31850/2025, the Court of Cassation enunciated a legal principle of considerable impact. The ruling states:

The issuance, by a single individual who holds the qualification of legal representative of different legal entities, of invoices or other documents for non-existent transactions relating to a specific tax period constitutes a plurality of offenses, as such companies are distinct taxpayer entities, to whom the issuance occurring within their respective tax periods is therefore attributable.

This pronouncement is crucial: even if the action is carried out by a single person, criminal liability multiplies in relation to the number of distinct legal entities involved. Each company is an autonomous taxpayer entity, with its own tax obligations. The issuance of false invoices by each entity harms the state's interest in a distinct manner for each entity, justifying the configuration of as many offenses. The Supreme Court emphasizes that the legal personality of companies is not a mere shield but an element that directly affects the legal qualification of the offense, overcoming the idea of a single continuing offense (Art. 81 of the Criminal Code) in favor of a material concurrence of offenses.

Key Legal and Regulatory Implications

The judgment falls within the framework of Legislative Decree of March 10, 2000, no. 74, which penalizes the issuance of invoices for non-existent transactions (Art. 8 of Legislative Decree 74/2000). The ruling reinforces the severity against such conduct, highlighting the distinction between an individual and a legal entity. This entails:

• Multiple Criminal Liability: The legal representative risks being held liable for as many offenses as there are distinct legal entities for which false documents were issued.
• Autonomous State Damage: The damage to the Treasury is considered autonomous for each company, with potential effects on penalties and confiscations.
• Relevance of Legislative Decree 231/2001: The principle of distinction between legal entities is also fundamental for the administrative liability of entities for offenses. Article 25-quinquies extends this liability to tax offenses, implying that each involved company may be independently sanctioned if it lacks a suitable Organization, Management, and Control Model.
• Art. 81 C.P. (Criminal Code): The judgment deviates from an extensive application of Article 81 of the Criminal Code (continuing offense) in favor of the material concurrence of offenses, given the plurality of passive subjects affected through distinct legal entities.

Conclusions: A Crucial Warning for Companies and Directors

Judgment no. 31850/2025 of the Court of Cassation is an unequivocal warning to all economic operators, particularly to the legal representatives of multiple companies. The rigorous interpretation of the Supreme Court clarifies that the legal form of a company is not a detail but an element that multiplies the criminal consequences in case of tax offenses. The distinction between an individual and a legal entity translates into autonomous criminal liability for each entity involved in the issuance of invoices for non-existent transactions. It is essential for companies and directors to maintain transparency and correctness in fiscal and accounting management, adopting rigorous internal control systems and availing themselves of specialized legal advice to prevent offenses and mitigate the risks of severe penalties.