Being involved in proceedings for false expert opinion or interpretation can call into question not only a single document, but also the way you performed a technical assignment before the judicial authority. The most immediate doubt is often this: is a contested conclusion, an error in the data, or a translation deemed inaccurate already sufficient to speak of a crime? I will explain why the answer does not depend solely on the existence of a contrary opinion or technical criticism.
In this guide, I want to clarify who may fall under Article 373 of the criminal code, what difference there is between a debatable evaluation and a deliberately false statement, and which steps take on significance if you receive a document from the Prosecutor's Office. The starting point is to properly distinguish the assignment received and the concrete content being contested.
When the Crime of False Expert Opinion or Interpretation Applies
Article 373 c.p. concerns a judicial assignment. The rule is addressed to the expert or interpreter appointed by the judicial authority who provides mendacious opinions or interpretations, or states facts that do not conform to the truth. Therefore, it is not enough for a professional to have written a report, formulated a diagnosis, performed an estimate, or translated a document: what counts above all is the function performed in the proceedings and the title with which they were called to operate. The text of the provision and the reference to the penalty provided for false testimony are reported in the official text published in the Official Gazette.
The allegation is criminal and personal. The accusation must refer to conduct attributed to the person who performed the assignment, not to a party's simple dissatisfaction with the outcome of the case. The expert opinion may have affected an important decision, but the defense must start from the specific fact contested: data described as false, an omission indicated as conscious, an altered translation, or a conclusion that, according to the prosecution, does not actually derive from the investigations carried out.
The penalty referenced is imprisonment from two to six years. Article 373 refers to the penalties of Article 372 c.p.; furthermore, a conviction entails disqualification from public office and from the profession or art. Precisely because of the effect it can have on professional activity, it is not useful to address the accusation as if it concerned only a divergence between technicians: it is necessary to understand with precision what role had been conferred and which passage of the document is placed at the center of the proceedings.
The Role Covered Changes the Framing of the Accusation
The appointment by the judicial authority is the first boundary. The expert is the auxiliary called by the judicial authority to carry out an assessment that requires technical, scientific, or artistic knowledge. The interpreter makes the linguistic comprehension of statements and acts possible. In both cases, their contribution is placed within proceedings and does not coincide with a consultancy provided freely on the professional market.
An opinion commissioned privately does not become a judicial expert opinion merely due to its technical content. A report prepared for a company, a private individual, an association, or a party's defense counsel may later be produced in court, but its origin remains an essential factor. A party-appointed technical consultant also operates with a different role from the expert appointed by the authority. This does not mean that every behavior is absolutely irrelevant, but it prevents the automatic application of Article 373 c.p. to any contested professional document.
The consultant appointed by the public prosecutor requires a specific distinction. The Constitutional Court has reconstructed the difference between the expert appointed by the judge and the technical consultant of the public prosecutor, noting that the latter is not automatically comparable to the expert for the purposes of Article 373 c.p. The difference is not formal: it arises from the different procedural placement of the assignment. The ruling published in the Official Gazette for the Constitutional Court helps to understand why the qualification attributed in the appointment act cannot be overlooked.
The qualification must be read together with the act of conferral. The way the professional presents themselves in common language is not decisive, nor is the title reported on letterhead. What matters is who ordered the assignment, in which proceedings, with what formula, and for which questions. If the act speaks of consultancy, expert opinion, interpretation, or another function, the words must be placed within the concrete procedural discipline and not read in isolation.
Technical Error, Different Opinion, and Deliberate Falsehood Are Not the Same Thing
A technical disagreement does not prove a false expert opinion on its own. In many subjects, different methods of detection, margins of approximation, incomplete documentary sources, and non-coinciding scientific or professional interpretations can exist. The presence of a second report, even if severely critical, does not automatically transform the first into a mendacious opinion. The central issue becomes the path connecting the sources, the assessments, and the conclusion.
The contestation must identify the content deemed false. It is different to argue that a professional applied a debatable criterion and to argue that they declared they examined a document never seen, measured data never detected, or translated a sentence in a way incompatible with the starting text. In the first case, there may be a discussion on method; in the second, the accusation tends to focus on the correspondence between what the document states and what actually occurred.
Technical premises matter as much as the conclusion. An opinion may appear wrong because it starts from incomplete documents, an ambiguous question, or information that later proved inaccurate. The defense must not limit itself to opposing an alternative result: it is important to distinguish the data made available at the time of the assignment, the checks concretely possible, the cautions expressed in the text, and the elements that subsequently emerged. A conclusion founded on an incomplete basis does not equate, for this reason alone, to a deliberately false statement.
A subsequent rectification does not solve the problem on its own. Correcting an error, integrating a clarification, or signaling a limitation of the document can be a relevant fact, but it does not automatically decide either the existence or the absence of the crime. It is necessary to understand when the correction takes place, what circumstance it adds, and whether it concerns a simple technical passage or a fact that the prosecution believes was known from the beginning. Silence on a piece of data can also assume different meanings: omitting an unknown element is not the same as intentionally concealing a circumstance already ascertained.
What It Means to Be Under Investigation and What Documents May Arrive
Being under investigation does not equate to being guilty. The investigation signals that the Prosecutor's Office is verifying a report of a crime; it does not contain a definitive decision on the facts. The presumption of innocence accompanies the person investigated and accused until guilt is legally proven, as stated by the European directive on the presumption of innocence. This rule does not replace technical defense, but prevents treating the accusation as an anticipated conviction.
Not all proceedings begin with the same act. You may become aware of the investigation through a notice, a request for the delivery of materials, a summons, a seizure, an act which defense counsel has the right to attend, or a subsequent notification. Each document indicates the proceeding office, the provisional fact contested, the rules recalled, and, above all, the faculties or deadlines connected to that specific step. Ignoring the nature of the act can cause you to lose the useful moment to intervene.
The notice of conclusion of investigations opens a concrete defensive space. If the public prosecutor proceeds towards the exercise of criminal action, the notice pursuant to art. 415-bis c.p.p. summarizes the fact, the rules deemed violated, and the deposit of investigative documentation. Within twenty days of notification, the suspect and defense counsel can examine the acts, extract copies, present briefs and documents, deposit defensive investigations, request further acts or interrogation. The guide of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Mantua summarizes these faculties in an accessible way.
The choice to make statements is not automatic. Explaining one's actions immediately can be useful when it is possible to clarify a simple and verifiable documentary misunderstanding. In other cases, a premature statement risks overlapping reconstructions that have not yet been compared with the available acts. The choice makes sense only after understanding which fact is actually attributed, which documents support it, and which technical explanation is consistent with what already appears in the file.
Defense Lines to Distinguish in the Concrete Case
A first defense may concern the contested role. If the assignment was not an expert opinion or interpretation rendered by appointment of the judicial authority, the problem concerns the very applicability of Article 373 c.p. This verification is not a marginal technicality: it can separate a contestation built on an improper qualification from the examination of any other profiles that, if existing, follow different rules.
A second defense concerns the technical reconstruction of the fact. Here it is necessary to explain why a piece of data was considered reliable, what method was adopted, what limits were declared, and whether the prosecution is confusing a debatable conclusion with a fabricated fact. An independent document can be useful when it clarifies the method and sources; it loses strength instead if it limits itself to stating that the first professional was right without responding to the specific contested point.
Documents and chronology serve to make the explanation verifiable. Generally, the appointment act, the question, the deposited report, technical attachments, versions of documents, communications received within the scope of the assignment, and any minutes of the operations take on significance. It is not necessary to accumulate extraneous material: it is more useful to connect each document to a concrete question, such as the origin of data, the declared limit, or the moment when new information became knowable.
Options cannot be reduced to denying or admitting. Depending on the acts, it may be necessary to challenge the qualification of the subject, clarify the absence of conscious falsehood, show that the controversial data came from a qualified source, or highlight that the judicial question did not require what the prosecution now claims. If the file instead contains a circumscribed and documented charge, the available procedural choices and their consequences must be carefully considered, without making decisions solely due to the pressure of the moment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a technically debatable opinion enough for the accusation of false expert opinion?
No, technical disagreement is not enough. An expert opinion can be criticized through a different method, additional data, or an alternative reading of the subject. For Article 373 c.p., it is necessary to identify the judicial role required by the rule and the passage that the prosecution considers mendacious or non-conforming to the truth. The defense must distinguish error, uncertainty, and professional opinion from conscious falsehood.
Does a report commissioned by a private individual always fall under Article 373 c.p.?
No, the private assignment is not automatically a judicial expert opinion. The decisive data is the appointment by the judicial authority and the function performed in the proceedings. A party report may have relevance in the lawsuit in which it is produced, but its author does not thereby assume the same position as the judge-appointed expert for the purposes of false expert opinion.
Does the technical consultant of the public prosecutor automatically answer for false expert opinion?
No, the figures do not automatically coincide. The consultant appointed by the public prosecutor and the expert appointed by the judge have a different procedural placement. Before reasoning on Article 373 c.p., one must read the appointment act and verify which function was actually attributed. The technical content of the report remains important, but it does not replace this initial verification.
What can I do after a notice of conclusion of investigations?
The notice allows knowing the acts and intervening. Within the term indicated by the law, normally twenty days, the suspect and defense counsel can examine the file, obtain copies, present briefs and documents, deposit defensive investigations, request new acts or interrogation. The useful choice depends on the content of the accusation and what the acts truly show.
Does a correction of the report eliminate the criminal risk?
Not automatically. The rectification can clarify a misunderstanding, signal an error, or show that data had been updated; however, the moment it intervenes, the reason for the modification, and the original content of the document must be evaluated. If the doubt concerns a contested falsehood, the correction must be read together with the documents and the chronology of the assignment.
Understanding the Act Before Choosing a Response
Effective defense begins with a precise contestation. In the crime of false expert opinion or interpretation, it is not sufficient to wonder whether the result was appreciated or criticized: it is necessary to identify the procedural role, the charged fact, the technical sources, and the meaning of any error. Only in this way is it possible to avoid confusing a professional contrast with the accusation of having consciously betrayed a judicial function.
If you have received an act or a summons, you can contact me. We will be able to frame the document received, distinguish urgent steps from technical issues to be clarified, and set up a response consistent with the acts actually available.