The case, explained
Stellantis Case: Conclusion of Investigations for Aggravated Fraud Against the State
5 min read · Updated July 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa
The conclusion of preliminary investigations in the Stellantis case, formalized on April 17, 2024, marks a key moment in a complex legal matter centered on the boundary between technological innovation and ordinary industrial production. According to reports in the national press, the investigation by the Turin Public Prosecutor's Office focuses on the allocation of approximately 40 million euros in public subsidies for electric mobility between 2017 and 2022. This article analyzes the legal basis of the aggravated fraud charge, examining the distinction between eligible R&D activities and routine industrial operations. Finally, a practical twin case is presented to illustrate how these dynamics unfold in legal practice and to outline available defense strategies.
In brief
The article analyzes the notice of conclusion of preliminary investigations issued against Stellantis (FCA Italy) for alleged aggravated fraud against the State. Prosecutors allege the use of deceptive artifices to obtain R&D funds for ordinary production projects. The analysis examines Art. 640-bis of the Italian Criminal Code and administrative liability under Legislative Decree 231/2001, distinguishing fraud from undue receipt of public funds. Through a simulated case, it highlights evidentiary issues concerning criminal intent and the demonstration of the innovative nature of costs.
The fact
On April 17, 2024, the Turin Public Prosecutor's Office served the notice of conclusion of preliminary investigations under Art. 415-bis c.p.p. on FCA Italy S.p.A. and several former corporate officers. According to reports by La Stampa and Milano Finanza, the prosecution alleges the undue procurement of approximately 40 million euros granted by the Ministry of Economic Development between 2017 and 2022.
The funds were allocated to R&D projects for hybrid and electric powertrains. Rai News 24 reports that, according to the prosecution, the company submitted reports containing inflated costs or expenditures pertaining to ordinary assembly line production, disguising them as experimental research through accounting artifices. The proceedings are currently at the post-investigation stage, and the presumption of innocence applies to all suspects.
The rules
The primary charge is based on Art. 640-bis of the Italian Criminal Code (Aggravated fraud for obtaining public funds), which punishes with imprisonment from 2 to 7 years anyone who obtains public grants or subsidies through fraud or deceit. Concurrently, Art. 24 of Legislative Decree 231/2001 on the administrative liability of entities applies: if the offense was committed in the interest or to the advantage of the company, the entity faces substantial financial and disqualifying penalties.
Art. 316-ter of the Criminal Code (Undue receipt of public funds) is also relevant as a subsidiary provision, applicable where complex fraudulent artifices are absent but false statements have been submitted. Lastly, Art. 322-ter of the Criminal Code provides for the mandatory forfeiture of the profit or proceeds of the crime upon conviction.
The case law
Case law from the Italian Supreme Court has clarified that establishing aggravated fraud requires deceptive conduct capable of misleading the granting public authority. Regarding R&D tax credits and subsidies, the Court distinguishes between process innovation, which involves overcoming the technological state of the art, and routine maintenance or production, which is ineligible for funding.
Regarding entity liability, established case law requires that the 231 Model be effectively implemented rather than merely adopted. The existence of an organizational manual does not exempt the legal entity from organizational fault if transparent information flows and internal controls over reported costs are lacking.
- 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 specific 231 protocols governing public funding reporting flows. Second, it underlines the need to prepare contemporaneous technical dossiers documenting the advancement over the technological state of the art. Third, caution is required when relying on external consultants: criminal and administrative liability remains directly with the company and its executive officers.
References: Articolo 640-bis Codice PenaleArticolo 316-ter Codice PenaleD.Lgs. 231/2001Articolo 415-bis Codice di Procedura PenaleArticolo 322-ter Codice Penale
Related cases
Frequently asked questions
What are the penalties for aggravated fraud involving public funds?
The Criminal Code establishes imprisonment from 2 to 7 years, alongside mandatory forfeiture of the crime's proceeds. For legal entities, Legislative Decree 231/2001 provides for substantial fines and disqualifying sanctions, such as a prohibition on contracting with the Public Administration.
What happens if the funds were spent correctly but the reporting is formal?
If the funds were actually applied to the intended purpose but there are only formal inaccuracies or false statements without deceptive artifices, the offense may be downgraded to undue receipt under Art. 316-ter c.p. or remain purely administrative.
How long is the statute of limitations for this type of crime?
The ordinary limitation period is 6 years, extending up to 7 years and 6 months where interrupting acts occur. In cases of installment payments, as a crime with continuous execution, the limitation period runs from the receipt of the final funding installment.
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