The case, explained

The Hidden Garden Investigation and the Boundary Between Renovation and New Construction

5 min read · Updated July 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa

The Milanese investigation concerning the Hidden Garden project marks a decisive turning point with the developments of November 2024, bringing back to the center of national debate the complex balance between urban development and compliance with criminal law. According to press reports, the case stems from a building intervention in Piazza Aspromonte that transformed a pre-existing office building into a seven-story residential complex, an operation now under judicial scrutiny for alleged irregularities in the building permits. This article reconstructs the facts and the violated rules, finally presenting a didactic twin case to illustrate the operational risks linked to administrative practices that do not comply with national law.

In brief

The Hidden Garden investigation concerns allegations of illegal subdivision for a residential project in Milan. Prosecutors hypothesize that using certified notifications of commencement of activity (SCIA) for high-impact interventions evades the requirement for implementation plans. The analysis examines the conflict between municipal practices and the Consolidated Law on Building, the penalties under Art. 44, and jurisprudence regarding confiscation and the protection of buyers in good faith.

  1. The facts

    According to reports by Corriere della Sera and Il Giorno, the Hidden Garden investigation concerns the demolition of a three-story building and an internal villa in Piazza Aspromonte, Milan, replaced by a new 7-story residential complex. The project was carried out via SCIA (Certified Notification of Commencement of Activity), qualifying it as building renovation.

    However, the Milan Prosecutor's Office alleges the crime of illegal subdivision, claiming the work was a new construction increasing the urban load, thus requiring an implementation plan. As of November 2024, the proceeding involves 26 suspects. The defense invokes good faith, based on the project's compliance with Milan Municipality practices. The case is currently in the preliminary hearing stage.

  2. The rules at play

    The regulatory core is Presidential Decree 380/2001 (Consolidated Law on Building). Art. 30 defines illegal subdivision as the commencement of works involving urban transformation in violation of urban planning tools. Art. 44, letter c), provides for criminal penalties and mandatory confiscation of land and works upon conviction.

    The dispute focuses on the definition of building renovation (Art. 3), which the prosecution argues cannot cover interventions that radically alter volume and urban load without general planning.

  3. What jurisprudence says

    The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has clarified that the crime of illegal subdivision can exist even in the presence of a formal building permit, if the latter is macroscopically illegal. Regarding confiscation, established case law, incorporating ECHR principles, states that the forfeiture measure cannot affect third-party buyers in good faith.

    Good faith is excluded only if the illegality of the permit was perceptible with ordinary professional diligence or if there is evidence of collusion between the buyer and the developer.

  5. 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.

    Try edit.legal AI

  8. What it teaches professionals

    1. Do not rely exclusively on municipal practices if they appear to conflict with the national Consolidated Law on Building.
    2. Always evaluate the impact of urban standards; a significant increase in users makes the choice of SCIA fragile.
    3. For those assisting buyers, due diligence is essential, moving beyond permit inspection to verify substantive legitimacy regarding the master plan.

References: D.P.R. 380/2001, Art. 3D.P.R. 380/2001, Art. 30D.P.R. 380/2001, Art. 44Convenzione Europea dei Diritti dell'Uomo (Corte EDU)

Related cases

30/07/2026The plea bargain of Giovanni Toti in the Ligurian investigation30/07/2026The Delmastro Case: Parliamentary Immunity and the Functional Link between Official Secrecy and Political Activity29/07/2026Home Detention Reform: Rehabilitation for Inmates with Drug Addiction
Avv. Federico Papa
Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAM

Frequently asked questions

What are the risks for those who buy a property in a subdivision later declared illegal?

The main risk is the confiscation of the property, which involves transferring ownership to the Municipality. However, jurisprudence protects the buyer in good faith who acted with diligence, making confiscation inapplicable unless negligence or intent of the third party is proven.

When can a renovation be challenged as an illegal subdivision?

This happens when the intervention, although formally qualified as renovation, involves a transformation of the territory such that it requires new urbanization works (roads, sewers, parking) which by law must be regulated by an implementation plan rather than a single building permit.

What should one do if under investigation for illegal subdivision?

In defense proceedings, it is standard practice to analyze technical documentation to demonstrate the reliance placed on the instructions of municipal offices and the project's compliance with current regulations, in order to challenge the existence of the subjective element of the crime.

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