NEVER SAYS NEVER: NEW LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS IN AGRI-FOOD CRIMES - Part 1

by Alessandro Coden

‍

On 29 May 2026, Law No. 75/2026 entered into force definitively. Through this legislation – as already anticipated – the legislator sought to reform the food sector, intervening both at the level of legal typification and at the level of sanctions, respectively by lowering the threshold of criminal relevance and by tightening punitive regimes.

At the outset, it should first be clarified that the reform does not affect food-related offenses aimed at protecting public health (poisoning of water or foodstuffs under Article 439 of the Italian Criminal Code; adulteration or counterfeiting of food stuffs under Article 440 c.p.; trade in counterfeit or adulterated foodstuffs under Article 442 c.p.; the sale or administration of defective medicines under Article 443 c.p.; the sale of harmful foodstuffs under Article 444 c.p.), nor does it affect Law No. 283 of 1962 (Hygienic regulations governing the production and sale of foodstuffs and beverages). Instead, it focuses exclusively on provisions linked to consumers’ commercial reliance, namely fraud in the exercise of trade under Art. 515 c.p. and the sale of non-genuine food substances as genuine under Art. 516 c.p. In this context, a new Chapter II-bis is introduced within Title VIII of the Criminal Code,entitled “Crimes against the agri-food patrimony”.

Within this new section, Article 517-quater c.p. – a provision introduced in 2009 to better sanction food counterfeiting – is relocated and redefined as “counterfeiting of geographical indications and protected designation marks of agri-food products”. Alongside it, two new offences are introduced: food fraudunder Art. 517-sexies c.p. and the trade in food products bearing misleading signs under Art. 517-septies c.p., together with specific mitigating and aggravating circumstances (Arts. 517-quinquies and 517-octies).

Starting with the offence of counterfeiting of geographical indications and protected designations of origin under Art. 517-quater c.p., the legislator not only increased the penalties (from one to four years’ imprisonment and a fineranging from €10,000 to €50,000, instead of a maximum of two years and a fine up to €20,000), but also anticipated the threshold of criminal protection. Unlike the previous formulation, the provision now also criminalises the introduction into the State’s territory under temporary custody or customs warehousing of counterfeit products, as well as their transit shipment, export, and transport, provided that a specific intent to profit is present.

This expansion – aimed at extending criminal protection across the entire foodsupply chain – must be coordinated with the removal, in the second paragraph of the provision, of the reference to artisanal and industrial products, originally included in both paragraphs following the amendment introduced by Article 21 of Legislative Decree No. 51 of 2 April 2026. In fact, just 22 days after its introduction, the legislator effectively neutralised the decree’s innovative scope, creating a mismatch between the paragraphs both in terms of the protected subject matter and the underlying legal interest.

Secondly, regarding food fraud under Art. 517-sexies c.p., the intention is clearly to replace, at least in the agri-food sector, the traditional offence of fraud intrade under Art. 515 c.p., as well as to absorb the offence of selling non-genuine food as genuine previously provided for under Art. 516 c.p., now repealed. The aim of the new provision is to punish not only the “delivery tothe buyer”, but also all activities aimed at placing on the market food, water, and beverages whose non-genuineness or divergence – in terms of origin, provenance, quality, or quantity – is known to the offender.

This results, on the one hand, in a broad list of criminally relevant conduct and, on the other, in the inclusion of agricultural, commercial, industrial, or intermediary activities. However, this expansion is balanced by a dual specificintent requirement – namely, the purpose of deceiving the consumer and the purpose of obtaining profit – as well as by a ground for non-punishability in paragraph three, excluding liability where the conduct is of minor relevance due to limited quantity or economic value, or due to the absence of effective harm to the consumer or the market.

A more serious offence is the trade in food products bearing misleading signs under Art. 517-septies c.p., which specifically targets those who, with the intent to mislead consumers for profit, use false or deceptive indications regarding the origin, provenance, quality, or quantity of food or ingredients, knowing them to be false or misleading. Accordingly, this offence carries a harsher penalty than food fraud, which is residual in nature and applies only where the offence of misleading trade in food cannot be established. The rationale for the increased sanction lies in the ability of such conduct to mislead even a careful purchaser, and thus in its greater harmfulness to the protected legal interest.

In this case too, the legislator provides for a wide range of conduct, reflecting the overarching objective of ensuring comprehensive criminal protection of the agri-food sector.

There form also introduces Article 517-quinquies, providing for a mitigating circumstance applicable to those who actively cooperate with law enforcement or judicial authorities in the investigation, in the collection of decisive evidence, or in identifying offenders, instruments of crime, or illicit profits. This applies not only to counterfeiting of geographical indications but also to food fraud and misleading food trade, there by harmonising the regime.

Symmetrically, Article 517-octies introduces an aggravating circumstance, providing for increased penalties for offences under Articles 517-sexies and 517-septies incases where: (1) the conduct concerns protected designations of origin or geographical indications; (2) the offences are committed through false transport documents or false declarations to supervisory bodies; (3) the facts are particularly serious due to the quantity of food involved; or (4) the conduct concerns food labelled as organic without certification, or is carried out through repeated operations and organised activities.

This aggravating circumstance effectively absorbs the offence of “agri-piracy”, originally intended as an autonomous offence, without weakening the level of protection. As noted in doctrine, the downgrading of agri-piracy to an aggravating circumstance has not resulted in a reduction of protection, since in such cases, in addition to harsher penalties, the newly introduced ancillary penalties under Article 518.1 c.p. also apply, such as disqualification from professional activity under Art. 30 c.p. and a ban on obtaining authorisations, subsidies, or public funding.

Further consequences include temporary closure of the establishment (from one to twelve months) and, in cases of repeated serious recidivism, revocation of licencesand permanent closure of the facility.

However, some commentators note that the normative technique adopted allows for balancing under Article 69 c.p., which may weaken the deterrent effect.

Also relevant is Article 517-octiesd, which allows for temporary closure of the establishment (from five days to three months) even in cases of food fraud or trade in misleading products.

Finally, Article 518.2 c.p. introduces mandatory confiscation – both direct and by equivalent value – of instrumentalities, products, proceeds, or profits of the offences under Articles 517-quater, 517-sexies, and 517-septies, unless belonging to a third party not involved in the offence.

Overall, the reform has several strengths, including a more precise definition of criminal conduct and more comprehensive protection of the agri-food sector. However, early commentators have identified tensions, particularly in the poor coordination within Article 517-quater and the omission, in relation to food fraud, of conduct such as “possession for sale”. Since non-conforming goods are often found in storage before being offered for sale, this omission may prevent the offence from being considered consummated in cases of mere possession.

Similarly, the absence of “delivery” among the relevant acts may lead to the re-emergence of the general fraud offence under Art. 515 c.p., undermining one of the key objectives of the reform.

Doubt salso remain regarding the ground for non-punishability under Article517-sexies, both because it applies only to food fraud and because its parameters appear uncertain and vague.

In conclusion, pending judicial interpretation of the reform, a corrective legislative intervention appears foreseeable, both to ensure systemic coherenceand to secure the effective achievement of the legislator’s stated objectives.

For a detailed analysis of the effects of the reform on the corporate liability regime under Legislative Decree No. 231/2001, readers are referred to the dedicated note by Attorney Riccardo Roscini Vitali.

‍