Premessa
Quella in commento risulta, al momento (gennaio 2010), la prima sentenza assolutoria di un Ente dall’illecito amministrativo, in quanto non punibile ai sensi dell’art. 6 del decreto legislativo n. 231/2001.
Il Giudice ha ritenuto efficace il modello organizzativo predisposto dall’Ente, rispetto alla commissione del reato di aggiotaggio “informativo” ex art. 2637 del codice civile.
Efficacia, giustamente, valutata “ex ante "with the commission of the offenses were perpetrated - according to GUP - by those" top "(President and Chief Executive Officer) of the Authority, in violation of internal rules of procedure provided for by the model, designed to involve more actors in the formation of news "price sensitive".
The ruling raises, however, surprised that nothing is, by itself, can be inferred about the preparation of an appropriate disciplinary system for violations perpetrated in this case the "top" of the rules to oversee the effectiveness of the model.
The process culminated in the decision under review, is l'esito di una complessa indagine nei confronti di una società per azioni e di società da questa controllate.
Si tratta di episodi di turbativa del mercato azionario, con imputazioni - spazianti dal falso in bilancio sino all’aggiotaggio societario - a carico dei dirigenti della S.P.A. “A” e della controllata “B”.
Imputazioni allargate al socio di “C” (società incaricata della revisione del gruppo), socio incaricato specificatamente della revisione contabile del gruppo societario.
La presente nota verterà unicamente sull'accertamento, compiuto dal Giudice, della responsabilità “amministrativa” della società “A” dipendente dal delitto, committed by the leaders of that body, under art. 2637 of the Civil Code, stock manipulation called "informative". Offences substantial, as is known, in disseminating false information likely to actually cause a significant change in the price of financial instruments, in this case constituted by the actions of company A and the bonds issued by group companies. The GUP
of Milan, in finding that there's grounds to have the trial of accused individuals, (President and CEO of the company "A") for that offense, he had to check if it could be applied to the company "A" ground for exemption from liability in art. 6 d. lgs. No 231/2001.
As noted, this article, first paragraph, letter a) provides that - where the management bodies of the have taken, before the commission of the offense of so-called "condition" of the administrative liability of a model of organization and management appropriate to prevent crimes similar to that occurred, the Authority is not held accountable and it can not, therefore, be subject to the penalties provided for in d. lgs. No 231/2001.
models of organization, management and control have been called "the core" d. lgs. No 231/2001. In fact, their adoption and effective implementation has a twofold value: If prepared in advance, determining exemption from liability of the institution, if implemented after the commission of the crime (if prior to the opening statement of the trial of first degree), involving the reduction of the penalty inapplicability of sanctions disqualification, and also the possibility, in the executive, requesting a penalty of disqualification in a fine.
models, the d. lgs. No 231/2001 treated in articles. 6 and 7: the first in relation to crimes committed by cc.dd. "Top" (people who are representatives, directors or management body) and the second in reference to offenses put in place by persons under the direction or supervision of the "top" (employees, project workers, consultants, employees, agents, distributors, dealers selling).
In this case, the judge found that the company "A" was quickly adopted by resolution of the board of directors, the above model within the deadline and according to the guidelines drawn up by Confindustria, the date of commission of crimes -condition, except for one, made about a month before the adoption of the model (in each case, on this fact, the judge is satisfied as at that date had already started the procedure adoption of the model and, in any case, as the company had already established its own code of conduct based on the principles laid down by the Italian Stock Exchange).
addition, the Supervisory Board appointed by the model was the same person previously appointed head of the 'internal auditing. "
From the above, the judge recognized the willingness of the institution, justified by its international dimension and the delicacy of the facilities which, to adapt to new rules adopted in a timely manner "almost unprecedented" in the panorama of Italian companies.
The Judge has also noted, with regard all’efficacia del modello, come non vi fossero precedenti in materia, se non forse a livello di multinazionali straniere e come la normativa fosse una novità assoluta per sia per la giurisprudenza che per la dottrina.
Il G.U.P. ha giustamente affermato la necessità, per scongiurare il rischio di trasformare la responsabilità “amministrativa” in responsabilità oggettiva degli enti, di operare una valutazione “ex ante” rispetto ai reati presupposti.
Diversamente, si perverrebbe a un’”interpretatio abrogans” dell’art. 6 del d. lgs. n. 231/2001.
Con valutazione “ex ante”, il modello poteva ritenersi efficace per prevenire gli illeciti societari oggetto prevention? This GUP for the fundamental question to ask.
In 2003, the only known models were those arising from the experience of voluntary codes of conduct and the entity had long embraced the code suggested by the Italian Stock Exchange Spa: The institution, therefore, according to the GUP, it could not be considered ineffective, for quotes, what had been suggested by major financial institutions in the country.
Regarding the effectiveness of the model to the crime of insider trading, the GUP has pointed out in the institution's model, the responsibility of Communications "price sensitive" was attributed to the President and Chief Executive Officer, namely proprio agli ipotetici autori del reato per cui si era proceduto con rinvio a giudizio.
Scelta non discutibile sul piano dell’efficacia, perché adottata in base alle linee- guida di Confindustria.
Ha osservato, tuttavia, il G.U.P. che non appariva ipotizzabile un modello diverso, in quanto non si vede come fosse possibile attribuire ad altre persone il compito di manifestare all’esterno dell’ente le notizie relative allo stato della società. Proprio per la natura riservata di tali notizie.
Il modello prevedeva che i rapporti con la stampa e i “mass media” fossero gestiti da uno specifico reparto e che la divulgazione dovesse essere in ogni caso completa, tempestiva, adeguata e non selettiva.
Il punto was not, therefore, be attributed to some internal organ other than the leaders (top management) control of information: the model, however, strongly reiterated the need for the apex, to meet the strictest professional ethics in disseminating news to the public investors and other market players: completeness, timeliness, appropriateness and non-selectivity of the data elements.
The Judge remarked how it was envisaged in the model, a strict procedure involving more subjects, in which it was at the top (the "top") the final approval of the press.
The GUP has found an infringement by the "top" the rules established in the model, since the data was not prepared to be submitted by the offices in charge, but that not true, imposed from the top to the official.
A procedure contrasts sharply with that provided for in the model, dictated by the objectives that the model they wanted to avoid, namely the creation of false information. Just as the GUP
found in relation to the training method of accounting and related external information, given the sheer convenience of image and truth without any check by the internal organs for this sector, but the monitoring provided by the model.
The model, therefore, was correct in predicting the contest offices in the preparation of sensitive information, but was shunned by the top tips.
Then, the judge acquitted the body from the crime ascribed to it, declaring it non-punishable, on the grounds that the subject of misconduct charges were not the result of a wrong organizational model, but were attributable to the social behavior of the vertices that is inconsistent with the internal rules of organization duly adopted.
The decision raises, for the writer's opinion, concern, since it seems to have considered sufficient to exclude the liability of the Authority, on the one hand the development of a model in accordance with the guidelines of Confindustria and, the establishment of a strict procedure for the disclosure of price sensitive information "and for the training of accounting, but without making any inquiry into the establishment by the Body, an adequate system of sanctions in defense of the effectiveness of the model.
To ensure the effectiveness and mitigating extenuating circumstance, in fact, the model must not only "adopted" but also "effectively implemented".
The 'effective implementation' requires, inter alia, a disciplinary system to sanction non-compliance with the rules of the code of conduct and operating procedures of the organizational model, both to degli apicali, quanto nei confronti dei soggetti sottoposti all’altrui direzione o vigilanza.
La giurisprudenza, va tenuto presente, ha ritenuto carenti i modelli dalla stessa esaminati nei casi in cui non era “espressamente prevista la comminazione di sanzione disciplinare nei confronti degli amministratori che, per negligenza – ovvero imperizia – non avessero saputo individuare e, conseguentemente, eliminare violazioni del modello e, nei casi più gravi, perpetrazione di reati” (Trib. Milano, 9/11/2004; 20/9/2004, 28/10/2004 e Tribunale di Bari ord. 18/4/2005).
Tale giurisprudenza segue la scia dell’esperienza statunitense, secondo cui l’apparato sanzionatorio “interno” entity represents the strength of a "compliance program" with a view to a "partial privatization of the administration of criminal justice" and, therefore, the introduction and / or 'implementation of a disciplinary system "ad hoc" is an essential requirement of organizational models, complementing the "minimum content".
It is not clear from a reading of the sentence, whether in defense of the model was to face a disciplinary system to punish violations - which in this case occurred, by the "top" - the model itself.
If they had identified the lack o l'inadeguatezza di tale sistema disciplinare, ad avviso di chi scrive, all'esito assolutorio non avrebbe potuto pervenirsi in maniera così scontata.
Avv. Antonio Salvatore
0 comments:
Post a Comment