The case, explained
Visibilia Case: Between Disputed Financial Statements and Parliamentary Immunity
6 min read · Updated May 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa
The judicial matter known as the Visibilia case reached a significant phase in May 2026, marked by the ongoing first-instance trial before the Court of Milan and a pending ruling from the Constitutional Court. According to reports in the national press, the proceedings concern alleged management and reporting irregularities committed between 2016 and 2022, involving the executive leadership of a prominent listed publishing group. By examining the prosecution's arguments and defense strategies, this article analyzes the crime of false corporate communications and the administration of public funds during the pandemic emergency. In the final section, an anonymized twin case is presented to illustrate the technical dynamics of the proceedings without interfering with current news coverage.
In brief
The article analyzes the Visibilia case, focusing on the indictment for false corporate communications and aggravated fraud against the INPS. It examines the statutory framework of Art. 2622 of the Italian Civil Code and the constitutional conflict regarding the evidentiary use of a parliamentarian's correspondence. The analysis includes a case study illustrating the burden of proof and defense strategies concerning intangible asset valuation and specific intent.
The fact
According to news outlets such as Il Sole 24 Ore, ANSA, and La Repubblica, the Visibilia case centers on Daniela Santanchè, who was investigated and subsequently indicted as the former chairperson and shareholder of the group.
The first strand of investigation concerns false corporate communications: the prosecution contends that between 2016 and 2022, the financial statements were manipulated by overstating the value of goodwill and websites to conceal losses and prevent insolvency. The second strand alleges aggravated fraud against the INPS for the undue receipt of Covid-19 redundancy benefits regarding employees who allegedly continued to work.
As of May 2026, the first-instance trial is ongoing before the Court of Milan; however, the investigation into social security fraud is affected by a conflict of powers raised by the Senate before the Constitutional Court regarding the evidentiary use of the senator's emails without prior authorization under Art. 68 of the Constitution.
The legal framework
At the core of the case lies Art. 2622 of the Italian Civil Code, governing false corporate communications in listed companies. The provision penalizes directors who, with intent to obtain an unfair profit for themselves or others, present untrue material facts in financial statements, misleading recipients.
Regarding social security matters, Art. 640, paragraph 2, no. 1 of the Italian Criminal Code (aggravated fraud for public funds) applies, punishing those who obtain public grants through deception. In civil proceedings, Arts. 2392 and 2394 of the Civil Code govern directors' liability for breach of managerial duties and damage caused to corporate assets and creditors.
The jurisprudence
Case law from the Supreme Court has clarified that false accounting may also occur through valuation estimates, so-called evaluative falsehood, when the criteria applied diverge patently and without justification from accepted accounting principles and are not disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. Settled case law requires specific intent, aimed at securing an unfair profit or deceiving the public.
Regarding the liability of non-executive directors, the Supreme Court has affirmed that the duty to act in an informed manner requires proactive intervention when warning signs emerge, as a board member cannot avoid liability by claiming ignorance of management actions approved by the board.
- Try edit.legal AI
Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal
To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.
What it teaches professionals
First, it highlights the necessity of supporting any valuation of intangible assets with independent expert appraisals and full disclosure in the notes to the financial statements to prevent claims of evaluative falsehood. Second, it underscores the importance of internal control protocols providing clear traceability of actual workforce attendance during periods of state-subsidized redundancy.
Third, for defense counsel, constant monitoring of constitutional guarantees regarding the collection of digital evidence remains paramount, particularly concerning statutory immunities.
References: Articolo 2622 Codice CivileArticolo 640 comma 2 n. 1 Codice PenaleArticolo 2639 Codice CivileArticolo 68 Costituzione ItalianaArticolo 2392 Codice Civile
Related cases
Frequently asked questions
What are the penalties for false accounting in listed companies?
Under Art. 2622 of the Italian Civil Code, the penalty for directors of listed companies who disclose untrue material facts in order to achieve an unfair profit is imprisonment from 3 to 8 years.
What happens if digital evidence is acquired without parliamentary authorization?
If the Constitutional Court finds a breach of Art. 68 of the Constitution, documents and correspondence acquired unlawfully are declared inadmissible in criminal proceedings and excluded from the evidence.
Is there a statute of limitations for corporate crimes related to old balance sheets?
Yes, the statute of limitations periods are calculated based on the maximum statutory penalty for the offense and affected by procedural interruptions. For older events, the expiration of the offense due to the statute of limitations remains possible depending on procedural delays.
Verified legal research and drafting with edit.legal
Legal research and drafting with citations checked against official databases. edit.legal is free to try, no credit card.
Try edit.legal for free