Being involved in an investigation for VAT fraud or other tax crimes can be particularly difficult for an accountant, tax advisor, or administrative assistant. The doubt does not concern only the contested invoice: one wonders whether an opinion, an accounting entry, the submission of a tax return, or the ongoing relationship with the client could turn into an accusation of complicity in the crime.
I want to clarify one point immediately: professional activity does not equate in itself to participation in the crime. However, the defense requires distinguishing normal technical contribution from conduct that has concretely aided a fraud and was carried out with awareness of its purpose. I will explain the most recurrent offenses, which facts truly matter, and which choices deserve attention from the early stages.
When the Advisor Can Be Involved in a Tax Crime
Criminal liability is personal. A professional is not automatically liable for the choices of the director or taxpayer simply because they keep the accounts, transmit tax returns, or prepare tax forms. The accusation must identify specific conduct by the professional and link it to the contested crime.
In proceedings for VAT fraud, the most frequent hypothesis is complicity in the crime committed by the client or other subjects in the supply chain. In simple terms, it is not enough to show that the advisor had contact with the company or was aware of documents later deemed irregular: it is necessary to verify whether their contribution had an effective function in the transaction and whether there was awareness of the tax evasion purpose.
Awareness does not coincide with generic suspicion. An invoice with incomplete data, a little-known counterpart, or an economically anomalous transaction may require professional prudence, but they do not prove on their own that the person providing assistance joined a fraud. Instead, the information actually received, instructions given, message exchanges, role in preparing documents, and concrete ability to influence the choice become important.
The position held also matters. Anyone performing an assignment limited to electronic transmission does not necessarily have the same role as someone who directly manages accounting, participates in negotiations, organizes document flows, or operates as a de facto director. The title of the assignment does not decide by itself: the point is what the person actually did and knew.
False Invoices and Fraudulent Tax Returns: Differences Not to Be Confused
“VAT fraud” does not describe a single crime. The expression covers different situations with distinct conditions and consequences. In 2026, the reference remains the current text of Legislative Decree 74/2000. Distinguishing the conduct requires consulting, among others, Articles 2, 3, 8 and 10, and checking the date of the conduct and when legislative amendments became applicable.
Fraudulent Tax Return Using Invoices for Non-Existent Transactions
The use in the tax return is the central node. Article 2 concerns anyone who, with the purpose of evading income taxes or VAT, uses invoices or documents relating to non-existent transactions to indicate fictitious passive elements in the tax return. The transaction may be non-existent because it never took place, because it took place only in part, because the price or VAT does not correspond to truth, or because the subjects indicated do not coincide with the real ones.
For the professional, the question is not simply whether they recorded an invoice. It is necessary to understand what contribution they gave to its tax use. It is different to receive a document from the client and account for it as part of an ordinary assignment, compared to contributing to building, selecting, or using documents knowing they serve to represent non-real costs or transactions.
Fraudulent Tax Return Using Other Devices
Not every accounting irregularity constitutes a fraud. Article 3 operates outside the cases of using invoices for non-existent transactions and requires simulated operations, false documents, or other fraudulent means capable of hindering detection and misleading the financial administration. It also requires jointly exceeding the thresholds provided by the rule.
The mere omission of an entry or the indication of lower revenues than actual do not constitute, on their own, the fraudulent means required by Article 3. This difference is important: the qualification of the fact cannot depend on a label, but on how the transaction was carried out and its impact on the tax return.
Issuing Invoices for Non-Existent Transactions
Issuing and using are distinct conducts. Article 8 punishes the issuance or release of invoices or other documents for non-existent transactions for the purpose of allowing third parties to evade taxes. For the same tax year, the issuance of multiple documents falls under the provision as a single crime; the rule also provides for different treatment when the non-truthful amount remains below the threshold indicated by the law.
An advisor may find themselves involved in an accusation relating to issuance even without being formally a director. But the accusation must still demonstrate a personal contribution to the production or conscious management of the documents. Mere administrative collaboration does not replace this proof.
Facts That Can Support or Exclude Complicity
The defense starts from the reconstruction of facts, not solely from the professional qualification. A dispute can be based on invoices, tax returns, VAT registers, payment delegation orders, electronic correspondence, access to management software, and company relationships. Each element must be connected to a precise question: what does it demonstrate about the professional's contribution and their knowledge of the transaction?
A written assignment can delimit the activities entrusted, but it does not resolve everything. If the mandate provides only for processing data delivered by the client, that limit is relevant; however, it remains necessary to compare it with concrete operations. Conversely, a broad assignment does not prove by itself participation in illicit conduct. Effective duties matter more than generic formulas.
Economic anomalies deserve punctual examination. For example, a commercial supply chain with unrealistic margins, suppliers without a structure, bank transfers returning to accounts linked to related parties, or documents prepared without operational feedback can assume different weight depending on whether the professional was the recipient, had discussed them with the client, or had contributed to organizing them.
The temporal factor is also decisive. Consulting rendered before the transaction does not have the same meaning as subsequent interventions aimed at correcting or justifying data already entered. Similarly, it is necessary to distinguish between those who merely receive already formed documents and those who participate in choosing counterparts, considerations, or tax steps.
Investigations, Seizure, and Relations with Tax Proceedings
A tax assessment and criminal proceedings are not the same thing. The former concerns the tax, tax returns, and administrative penalties; the latter requires ascertaining the elements of the crime and the liability of the investigated person. Evidence gathered in tax proceedings can be used in the investigation, but they do not eliminate the need to prove personal contribution and the intentional element required by the offense.
When there are hypotheses of fraudulent tax return, issuance of false invoices, concealment of accounting records, or other tax crimes, real precautionary measures may come into play, such as seizure aimed at confiscation. Seizure does not equate to a conviction, but it can immediately impact the availability of funds and assets. For this reason, it is necessary to distinguish the presumed profit of the crime, its quantification, and the actual availability of assets by the involved person.
In tax proceedings, the payment of the debt can have very different effects depending on the crime, the moment it occurs, and the procedure used. For Articles 2 and 3, Article 13 of Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000 links non-punishment to particularly rigorous conditions: full payment through active repentance or submission of the omitted tax return in foreseen cases, prior to formal knowledge of visits, inspections, checks, assessments, or criminal proceedings.
Paying does not automatically erase the accusation of fraud. If the interested party has already had formal knowledge of control activities or proceedings, the non-punishment effect provided for those offenses is not produced according to that discipline. Payment can nevertheless impact other profiles, including those provided by Article 13-bis, and must therefore be evaluated without confusing a tax choice with a certain criminal solution.
Plea Bargaining and Debt Payment: Why They Are Not Shortcuts
Plea bargaining requires specific conditions in tax crimes. Article 13-bis, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000 conditions the request for application of penalty, except for hypotheses recalled by Article 13, upon the extinction of the tax debt including penalties and interest prior to the opening of first-instance trial, or upon the presence of active repentance in foreseen cases.
This rule can create a concrete problem in proceedings for issuing non-existent invoices, because the material author may not coincide with who used the documents or with the subject economically interested in the evasion. An order published in the Official Gazette in 2026 shows precisely how the issue was submitted to the Constitutional Court with reference to the application of the condition to the crime of issuance. 2026 referral order on Article 13-bis.
The defensive choice depends on the concrete dispute. Challenging complicity, discussing the nature of the transaction, addressing the quantification of profit, defining the tax position, or evaluating alternative rituals are different levels. They must not be pursued automatically, nor does one always exclude the other: priority changes based on the stage of proceedings, available evidence, and the role actually attributed to the professional.
As of the reference date of this guide, Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000 continues to regulate these crimes. The 2024 consolidated text on tax penalties has been published, but its effectiveness for the part transposing these provisions has been postponed to January 1, 2027. Publication and effectiveness do not coincide; this distinction avoids applying norms not yet operational in advance. Consolidated text on tax penalties published in 2024.
When the Company May Also Be Involved
The investigation can also concern the entity. For certain tax crimes, including fraudulent tax return using invoices or other devices, issuing invoices for non-existent transactions, concealment of accounting documents, and fraudulent evasion of tax payment, Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2001 provides for potential entity liability.
This does not mean that every crime contested against an individual automatically involves the company. It is necessary to verify, among other things, whether the act was committed in the interest or to the advantage of the entity and what the position of the involved person was. Legislative Decree No. 75 of 2020 reports the offenses recalled by Article 25-quinquiesdecies and contemplates further discipline for certain cross-border VAT fraudulent systems. Discipline on entity liability for tax crimes.
The advisor's position and that of the entity remain separate. An external professional does not become part of the corporate organization simply because they provide ongoing assistance. On the other hand, if the accusation argues that they stably participated in operational decisions or a false invoicing system, this profile must also be addressed with precision, without overlapping different roles.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I be investigated if I only transmitted the client's tax return?
Mere transmission does not prove complicity. The accusation must demonstrate a concrete contribution to the crime and awareness of its evasion purpose. Instructions received, known information, and activities performed beyond technical submission become relevant. A limited assignment is a useful element, but must be compared with effective operations.
Can a subjectively non-existent invoice involve the advisor?
Yes, but not automatically. An invoice can be contested even when the transaction took place but the indicated subject is not the one who actually executed it. For the professional, however, it remains necessary to prove they knew about this divergence and gave a conscious contribution to its use or issuance.
Does payment of the tax debt always close criminal proceedings?
No, effects change according to the crime and the moment of payment. For fraudulent tax returns under Articles 2 and 3, non-punishment requires temporal conditions and specific modalities. If such conditions do not occur, payment may have other effects, but does not allow claiming the crime is automatically eliminated.
Can I request plea bargaining if the accusation concerns false invoices?
The possibility must be verified carefully. Article 13-bis links plea bargaining, in foreseen cases, to the extinction of tax debt prior to the opening of trial, barring Article 13 hypotheses. For issuing non-existent invoices, the relationship between tax debt and defendant's position can be particularly delicate.
Does the client's company answer together with the professional?
Entity liability has autonomous prerequisites. For certain tax crimes Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2001 may apply, but it must be ascertained that the crime was committed in the company's interest or advantage and verify the physical person's role. The external professional relationship is not enough, on its own, to create liability for the entity or advisor.
Navigating Without Confusing Roles and Consequences
In tax crimes, effective defense does not stem from the formula “I didn't know”, nor from the mere existence of a professional assignment. It is necessary to separate facts, roles, and different moments: who decided the transaction, who formed the documents, who used them in the tax return, what information was available, and when checks or investigations began. If you are involved in this type of dispute in Milan, you can contact me to examine your position and documents already received.