The case, explained

The plea bargain of Giovanni Toti in the Ligurian investigation

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

The plea bargain involving Giovanni Toti represents one of the most significant issues in recent judicial news, raising crucial questions about political financing and the exercise of public office. According to national press reports between May and September 2024, the case led to a procedural agreement that redefines the initially hypothesized responsibilities, offering an opportunity to reflect on special procedures. Through the analysis of facts and laws, this contribution explores the distinction between different forms of corruption and the impact of ancillary penalties. We will also propose a twin case to illustrate the legal dynamics in a different context, allowing for the isolation of technical principles applicable to similar situations.

In brief

The article analyzes the plea bargain agreed upon by the Genoa Prosecutor's Office and Giovanni Toti's defense, focusing on the reclassification of the charge from proper corruption to corruption for the exercise of functions (Art. 318 Criminal Code). It examines procedural and sentencing outcomes, including the confiscation of 84,100 euros and the substitution of the custodial sentence with 1,500 hours of community service. The study further explores the implications of Law no. 3/2019 (so-called Spazzacorrotti Law) and defense strategies in proceedings involving crimes against the Public Administration.

The fact
According to reports from ANSA and Il Sole 24 Ore, on September 13, 2024, a plea bargain agreement was filed between the Genoa Prosecutor's Office and Giovanni Toti, former President of the Liguria Region.
The case, which emerged in May 2024, concerns alleged exchanges involving financing for the electoral committee and administrative acts favorable to certain entrepreneurs. Corriere della Sera reports that the agreement provides for a sentence of 2 years and 1 month of imprisonment, the confiscation of 84,100 euros, and the conversion of the sentence into 1,500 hours of community service.
The current procedural stage is the ratification of the agreement (Art. 444 Code of Criminal Procedure), with a hearing set for October 30, 2024. Until then, and in respect of the presumption of innocence, the agreement is not enforceable and must be reviewed by the GIP.
The norms involved
The legal core lies in the distinction between Art. 319 Criminal Code (proper corruption for acts contrary to official duties) and Art. 318 Criminal Code (improper corruption for the exercise of functions).
The plea bargain involved a reclassification to the less severe offense under Art. 318 Criminal Code, which punishes a public official who receives benefits for the exercise of their functions, without needing to identify a specific unlawful act.
Furthermore, Art. 444 Code of Criminal Procedure applies, allowing a sentence reduction of up to one-third, alongside Law 3/2019 (Spazzacorrotti), which regulates the application of ancillary penalties such as disqualification from public office even in plea bargains.
What the case law says
The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has clarified that improper corruption (Art. 318 Criminal Code) constitutes the so-called enslavement of the function, wherein the public official places themselves permanently at a private party's disposal.
According to Cass. Pen., Sec. VI, n. 4486/2019, this crime exists when the bargaining concerns the official activity as a whole. Regarding plea bargains, the Court of Cassation (n. 25143/2023) reiterates that the judge must not merely ratify the agreement, but must verify the correctness of the legal qualification proposed by the parties.
The twin case
Meanwhile, in Roccamesta…
The Hon. Ottavio Perdoni is the director of an agency of the Municipality of Roccamesta for environmental protection. Gaio Sventura, owner of an industrial remediation company, regularly makes traceable donations to a cultural foundation chaired by Perdoni.
In exchange, the Honorable ensures Gaio that applications for disposal permits are processed with maximum speed, while remaining formally correct. The prosecution alleges that these payments are not mere donations, but the price for Perdoni's availability to favor the company through the accelerated exercise of his function.
Avv. Prudenzia Cavillo advises a plea bargain for improper corruption, providing for a fine and community service to avoid trial. Disclaimer: this practical case is a hypothetical educational reconstruction and does not correspond to the real case or predict its outcome; any reference to real persons or entities is purely coincidental; the analysis rests solely on the cited provisions and case-law orientations and constitutes general legal information, not legal advice.
Step-by-step analysis
1. Legal qualification of facts: verifying whether the payments are linked to the official office held.
2. Constitutive elements: establishing the link between the sums received and the availability of the public official, regardless of whether unlawful acts were committed.
3. Burden of proof: the prosecution must demonstrate that the money is not a genuine donation, but rather serves an unlawful cause.
4. Choice of procedure: the defense evaluates a plea bargain to obtain a sentence reduction and conversion into community service, mitigating reputational damage and avoiding the uncertainty of an ordinary trial.
Possible outcomes
In the twin case, if the GIP considers the sentence appropriate and the qualification as improper corruption correct, they proceed with the ratification of the agreement (plea bargain sentence). Conversely, if the judge believes the conduct constitutes proper corruption (Art. 319 Criminal Code) or that the sentence is insufficient, they reject the agreement and proceedings continue via ordinary procedure.
If ratified, Hon. Ottavio Perdoni must perform community service, and the foundation may face the confiscation of the sums received.
From the twin case back to the real one
The case of Gaio and Hon. Perdoni allows us to isolate the underlying legal structure: the thin line between lawful funding and improper corruption. In the real case involving Giovanni Toti, the GIP's review of the agreement's appropriateness remains open, keeping in mind that a plea bargain is not an admission of guilt, but rather a procedural choice.
The principle expressed clarifies how the legal system penalizes the placing at disposal of the public function regardless of the actual damage caused.
GSMeet the cast of the columnGaio Sventura and the other inhabitants of Roccamesta return in every practical case.Read their stories
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
What it teaches professionals
1. The traceability of funding does not constitute a defense if an enslavement of public function is established.
2. Reclassifying the crime is the decisive technical tool in plea bargain negotiations for crimes against the Public Administration.
3. Ancillary penalties under the Spazzacorrotti Law require cautious evaluation, as disqualification can apply even with modest base sentences.
4. Conversion into community service represents a valid alternative mechanism for sentences within statutory limits.

References: Art. 318 c.p.Art. 319 c.p.Art. 444 c.p.p.L. 3/2019Art. 317-bis c.p.Art. 444 co. 3-bis c.p.p.

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 30 July 2026

Frequently asked questions

What happens if the judge rejects the plea bargain?

If the judge deems the sentence inappropriate or the crime qualification incorrect, they reject the request and the file returns to the Prosecutor. The trial usually proceeds through ordinary forms, and the defendant may potentially propose a new plea bargain under different terms.

What is the difference between proper and improper corruption?

Proper corruption (Art. 319 Criminal Code) involves performing a specific act contrary to official duties. Improper corruption (Art. 318 Criminal Code) involves accepting benefits for the generic exercise of functions, representing the so-called enslavement of the public role to private interests.

Does community service cancel the sentence?

Community service is a method of executing a substitute sentence. If performed correctly according to the program approved by the judge, it leads to the extinction of the crime after the specified period, but remains recorded in the criminal record as the outcome of a plea bargain.