NEVER SAYS NEVER: NEW LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS IN AGRI-FOOD CRIMES - Part 2
by Riccardo Roscini-Vitali - lawyer
With Law no. 75 of 21 April 2026, published in the Official Gazette No. 110 of 14 May 2026 and entered into force on 29 May 2026, the legislator has introduced sanctioning provisions to protect Italian food products.
As regards, in particular, the liability of entities, the following changes should be noted.
· With the repeal of art. 516 of the Criminal Code, the sale of non-genuine food substances as genuine is removed from the catalogue of predicate crimes.
· With the amendment of Article 517-quarter of the Criminal Code (Counterfeiting of geographical indication and protected designation signs of agri-food products), already a predicate offence pursuant to Article 25-bis. 1 paragraph 1 lett. a Legislative Decree no. 231 of 8 June 2001 (Crimes against industry and commerce), a company that introduces into the territory of the State, even in temporary custody or in a customs warehouse, ships in transit, exports, transports, holds for sale, offers or offers for sale or otherwise puts into circulation agri-food products whose geographical indication or designation of origin is known to be counterfeit or altered, becomes criminally punishable.
· The catalogue of predicate offences referred to in art. 25-bis.1 paragraph 1 lett. a Legislative Decree 231/2001:
- the new Article 517-sexies of the Criminal Code (Food fraud), which makes a company criminally punishable if, in the exercise of an agricultural, commercial, industrial or intermediary activity, imports, exports, ships intransit, introduces into temporary storage or in a customs warehouse, transports, offers for sale, distributes or otherwise puts into circulation, including by means of distance communication techniques or digital tools in telematic networks, food, water and beverages that are known to be non-genuine or, in terms of origin, provenance, quality or quantity, substantially different from those indicated, declared or agreed;
- the new Article 517-septies of the Criminal Code (Trade in food with falsesigns), which makes a company punishable by criminal law which, in the exercise of an agricultural, industrial, commercial, import, export, introduction into temporary storage or customs warehouse or brokerage of food, water and beverages, uses distinctive signs or indications, even if figurative, which it knows to be false or misleading, also with distance communication techniques or with digital tools in telematic networks, as to the origin, provenance, quality or quantity of food or ingredients.
It should be noted that the company is criminally punishable for food fraud and trade in food with false signs where such conduct is carried out with several operations and through the preparation of means and continuous organized activities aimed at committing these crimes [new art. 517-octiesparagraph 4 of the Criminal Code (Accessory penalty and aggravating circumstances)].
In addition, with the addition to art. 246 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure of a new paragraph 2-bis, if in the context of the inspection of things there is a need to proceed with sampling and sampling activities and there is reasonable reason to believe that the traces or other material effects of the crime may be altered, the public prosecutor may proceed without giving notice to the defense counsel, which is reserved, in any case, to the right to intervene (Article 364, paragraph 5,second sentence of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
Furthermore, with the amendment of art. 266 paragraph 1 lett. f-ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the interception of telephone conversations or communications and other forms of telecommunications is also permitted in proceedings relating to the offences of food fraud (Article 517-sexies of the Criminal Code) and trade in food with false signs (Article 517-septies of the Criminal Code), as well as counterfeiting of geographical indication signs and protected designation of agri-food products (Article 517-quarter of the Criminal Code).
Finally, as regards compliance aspects, pursuant to art. 6 paragraph 1 lett. A and B of Legislative Decree 231/2001, the company is not liable for organisational fault if its board effectively adopts and implements organisational and management models (so-called “231 models”) suitable for preventing crimes of the kind examined here and entrusts the task of supervising the operation and compliance of these models and of ensuring their updating to an internal body of the company with autonomous powers of initiative and control.
The Ministry of Justice’s Technical Table for the revision of the discipline of the liability of entities has outlined, in the proposal for the articulation presented in November 2025, the trajectories of development of this discipline, defining organizational fault as the failure to adopt or the ineffective implementation of a 231 model suitable for preventing crimes of the kind that occurred.
Taking the wine sector as an example also inrelation to its particular complexity, to protect its tangible and intangible assets the company can therefore move towards the adoption or updating of a 231model, with which it reorganizes the complex regulatory network that typically governs the management of the winery and, taking into account the company’s particularities, records, for each rule, the objective evidence of its application, as a further demonstration of its interest in ensuring greater protection of the quality of the final product and, therefore, of the legitimate interests ofconsumers.
To give just a few concrete examples, the 231 model could prescribe:
· with regard to the production and marketing of wine products:
- the methods of managing the wine register, so as to ensure the use of this controland inventory tool according to the procedures agreed within the services of the SIAN;
- the methods of detention in the cellar, so as to ensure that, without prejudice to the permitted exceptions, substances are not kept in the oenological establishments and in the annexed or intercommunicating rooms which, at least potentially, could lend themselves to the adulteration of wine products;
- the methods of control of oenological practices, so as to ensure that only authorized oenological treatments and compounds are used in the production and storage of wine products;
· With regard to the traceability of wine products:
- the methods for keeping and updating the dematerialised register specifically provided for the reporting of wine and products upstream of wine (e.g. freshgrapes; grape must; partially fermented grape must; new wine still infermentation, etc.) in terms, for example, of transactions to be recorded and information to be specified for the transactions subject to registration, so as to ensure that the annotation respects the timeline of the operations actually carried out in the cellar;
- the methods of use of the accompanying document and the loading-unloading register, so as to ensure the necessary traceability of the products required in the agri-food sector and the documentary reconstructability of the origin of the product;
- the methods of managing cellar movements, so as to ensure that the accounting and physical situation of the products stored within the winery correspond.