The case, explained

Legitimacy and nature of the Milano-Cortina 2026 Foundation: between private law and public control

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

The investigation into the Milano-Cortina 2026 Foundation has sparked a central debate on the legal nature of entities responsible for organizing major events. According to press reports published between 2024 and 2025, judicial scrutiny focused on whether a formally private entity should be qualified as a body governed by public law, with direct consequences regarding public procurement rules and the criminal liability of its managers. In this analysis, we reconstruct the legal framework of the case, examining the provisions on corruption and bid-rigging applied to hybrid public-private foundations. Finally, we present a hypothetical twin case to illustrate how jurisprudential criteria can classify a private executive as a public service officer.

In brief

This article analyzes the investigation into the Milano-Cortina 2026 Foundation concerning allegations of corruption and bid-rigging. The core issue revolves around whether the entity qualifies as a body governed by public law, which would entail the obligation to conduct public tender procedures. Examining the Public Contracts Code and relevant criminal provisions, the analysis outlines executive liabilities and practical guidance for managing hybrid public-private entities.

  1. The facts

    The case stems from an investigation by the Milan Prosecutor's Office which, according to reports by news outlets such as Il Sole 24 Ore, Il Giorno, and Sky TG24, alleged irregularities in the awarding of technological and digital services for the Winter Olympics.

    At the center of the investigation, which is currently at the stage of preliminary investigations, are former CEO Vincenzo Novari and several IT sector entrepreneurs. The prosecution hypothesizes that the selection of suppliers occurred in exchange for promised benefits and in violation of competition rules.

    If confirmed, the prosecution's theory rests on the premise that the Foundation, although established as a private entity, operates in substance as an arm of the Public Administration, managing funds and interests of national importance protected by the State.

  2. The rules at play

    The legal pillars of the case are Art. 319 of the Criminal Code, which punishes proper corruption (the agreement to perform acts contrary to official duties), and Art. 353 of the Criminal Code on bid-rigging, which sanctions those who prevent or disturb the regular conduct of tenders.

    Fundamental is Legislative Decree 36/2023 (Public Contracts Code), which defines a body governed by public law: an entity that, despite its private form, satisfies needs of general interest non-industrial or commercial in nature and is subject to public funding or control. Finally, Decree-Law 16/2020 regulates the organization of the Games, establishing a supervision regime by the Court of Auditors.

  3. What case law says

    The case law of the Court of Cassation has established that the private legal form of an entity is not sufficient to exclude the qualification of public official or public service officer for its representatives: for criminal law purposes, what matters is the function actually exercised.

    In administrative matters, courts apply the principle of substance over form, establishing that foundations created to manage public resources must follow public tender procedures to ensure transparency, equal treatment, and fair competition among economic operators.

  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

    The analysis offers key practical takeaways:

    1. Substantive verification: never rely solely on a private statutory form.
    2. Preventive compliance: implement public tender procedures even in hybrid entities.
    3. Risk mapping: identify roles that could be qualified as public service officers to properly update 231 Models.

References: Articolo 319 Codice PenaleArticolo 353 Codice PenaleD.Lgs. 36/2023 (Codice dei Contratti Pubblici)D.L. 16/2020 (Decreto Olimpiadi)D.Lgs. 33/2013 (Decreto Trasparenza)

Related cases

29/07/2026AI Regulation and Biometrics: The Legislative Path Between Security and Privacy22/07/2026Beach Concessions Case: Plenary Assembly on Title Expiration07/07/2026Landscape Protection in South Tyrol: The Constitutional Court to Decide
Avv. Federico Papa
Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAM

Frequently asked questions

What are the penalties for corruption and bid-rigging?

Corruption for an act contrary to official duties (Art. 319 Criminal Code) carries a sentence of 6 to 10 years' imprisonment. For bid-rigging (Art. 353 Criminal Code), the penalty ranges from 6 months to 5 years. Sentences vary depending on mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

When does a private foundation become a body governed by public law?

Under the Public Contracts Code, a private foundation qualifies as a body governed by public law when it possesses legal personality, is established to meet general interest needs not of an industrial or commercial nature, and is subject to majority funding or managerial control by the State or local authorities.

What does an executive of a participated foundation risk in case of an investigation?

In addition to criminal penalties, executives may face personal or disqualifying precautionary measures as well as preventive asset seizure. It is advisable to monitor internal process compliance with transparency rules right from the preliminary investigation stage.

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