Analysis of Judgment No. 1810 of 2024: Concurrence between Fraudulent Evasion and Fraudulent Bankruptcy

Judgment No. 1810 of 2024, issued by the Court of Reggio Calabria, has shed light on a matter of significant importance in the field of tax criminal law: the concurrence between the crime of fraudulent evasion of taxes and fraudulent bankruptcy. The decision is significant not only for its legal content but also for the practical implications it entails for taxpayers and entrepreneurs.

The Regulatory Context

The judgment is part of an evolving regulatory framework, particularly with reference to the repeal of Article 11 of Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000, which modified the reference parameters for the crime of fraudulent evasion. The now repealed provision punished anyone who had evaded, in whole or in part, the payment of taxes. With the repeal, the problem arises of how to interpret and apply existing regulations, especially in relation to fraudulent bankruptcy.

Configurability of Concurrence

The crime of fraudulent evasion of taxes under art. 11 of Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000 (now repealed) - Concurrence with the crime of fraudulent bankruptcy - Configurability - Reasons - Factual circumstances. Concurrence between the crime of fraudulent evasion of taxes and fraudulent bankruptcy by misappropriation is configurable, given that the relevant criminal provisions do not regulate the "same matter" pursuant to art. 15 of the Italian Criminal Code, due to the diversity of the legal interest protected (fiscal interest in the successful outcome of compulsory collection, on the one hand, and the interest of the mass of creditors in the satisfaction of their rights, on the other), the nature of the abstract factual circumstances (of danger for the fiscal one, of damage for the bankruptcy one), the subjective element (specific intent for the former, general intent for the latter), and the potential scope of active subjects (narrower in the bankruptcy crime, consisting only of the declared bankrupt entrepreneur and the administrative bodies of corporate companies and similar entities, wider in the fiscal one, abstractly referable to any taxpayer, even if not an entrepreneur or assimilated). (Factual circumstances prior to the repeal of art. 11 of Legislative Decree of 10 March 2000, n. 74, provided for by art. 101, paragraph 1, letter z), of Legislative Decree of 5 November 2024, n. 173).

The judgment clarifies that the two crimes do not overlap, as they protect distinct legal interests: the fiscal interest in the compulsory collection of taxes and the interest of creditors in bankruptcy proceedings. This distinction is fundamental to understanding how and when concurrence can be established. Furthermore, the difference in the nature of the factual circumstances is highlighted: while the tax crime is one of danger, the bankruptcy crime is one of damage.

Practical Implications

The implications of this judgment are manifold:

• It strengthens the protection of fiscal interests, emphasizing the importance of complying with tax obligations.
• It clarifies the boundaries of responsibility for entrepreneurs, avoiding confusion between different types of crimes.
• It offers a clearer regulatory framework for legal defense in cases of disputes concerning tax and bankruptcy offenses.

In this way, it contributes to greater legal certainty, which is fundamental for economic planning and business management.

Conclusion

In conclusion, judgment No. 1810 of 2024 represents an important step forward in defining legal responsibilities in the tax and bankruptcy fields. It is essential for legal professionals and entrepreneurs to pay attention to these distinctions to avoid unexpected legal consequences and to ensure proper management of their tax and commercial obligations.