The case, explained

The Cappellari Case: Between Staged Crimes and Calumny

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

The case of journalist Adriano Cappellari reaches a new procedural chapter, bringing focus back to the boundaries between freedom of the press and crimes against the administration of justice. According to national press reports, the proceedings involve alleged staging of assaults and threats that purportedly misled investigating authorities between 2021 and 2022. In this in-depth analysis, we will reconstruct the legal framework of the charges of simulated crime and calumny, analyzing how the judiciary evaluates the suitability of false reports to mislead investigations. Finally, we will present a twin case to explore defense strategies and the possible outcomes of such a complex matter.

In brief

This article analyzes the indictment of Adriano Cappellari for simulated crime and calumny. It examines Articles 367 and 368 of the Penal Code regarding reports of assaults and threats deemed unfounded by the Public Prosecutor's Office of Verona. Through an illustrative benchmark case, the boundary between journalistic activity and the creation of public alarm is examined, offering practical insights into evidence management and the proof of direct criminal intent.

  1. The facts

    According to reports from Corriere del Veneto and Il Giornale, Adriano Cappellari, a journalist active in communication, reported between 2021 and early 2022 that he had been the target of serious threats, including bullets sent by mail and a physical assault in Verona in January 2022.

    Investigations by the Digos and the Mobile Squad, initially aimed at protecting press freedom, took a different turn. The Prosecution hypothesized that these episodes were staged to gain professional visibility. On May 22, 2024, the Preliminary Hearing Judge of the Court of Verona ordered the indictment for Cappellari. At the current stage, the proceedings are in the first-instance trial phase.

  2. Legal framework

    The case revolves around two provisions of the Penal Code: Art. 367 (Simulated crime) and Art. 368 (Calumny). Simulated crime punishes those who falsely claim a crime has occurred or simulate its traces to trigger a criminal proceeding; the penalty ranges from one to five years.

    Calumny is more severe as it assumes the subject specifically blames a person or determinable group knowing they are innocent. Both regulations protect the proper functioning of justice, preventing investigative resources from being wasted on useless or harmful proceedings.

  3. Case law orientation

    The case law of the Supreme Court has clarified that for simulated crime, a false statement is not enough; the conduct must be objectively suitable to trigger the start of investigations. If the deception is so gross as to be immediately perceptible, the crime does not exist due to the unsuitability of the action.

    Regarding calumny, judges emphasize the necessity of direct intent: the accuser must have certainty of the accused's innocence at the time of the report. If there is even a reasonable doubt or a perceptual error in good faith, the charge of calumny falls away, potentially leaving only aspects of negligence that are not criminally punishable under this specific charge.

  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. Lessons for professionals

    First, the importance of analyzing the technical compatibility of material traces before setting the defense strategy. Second, the need to distinguish between intent and simple narrative emphasis when drafting complaints.

    Third, the necessity of monitoring any social alarm generated, as it heavily impacts sentencing under Art. 133 of the Penal Code.

References: Art. 367 c.p.Art. 368 c.p.Art. 133 c.p.

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 someone staging an assault that never happened?

They risk a conviction for simulated crime (Art. 367 c.p.) with imprisonment from 1 to 5 years. If they point to a specific culprit, it constitutes the more severe crime of calumny (Art. 368 c.p.).

What is the difference between calumny and defamation?

Calumny consists of accusing a person known to be innocent of a crime before judicial or law enforcement authorities. Defamation offends someone's reputation by communicating with multiple people, outside the context of calumny.

Can a report be withdrawn if one realizes they made a mistake?

Yes, but the retraction or withdrawal must occur promptly. If the proceeding has already started and one acted with intent, the crimes of calumny or simulated crime are already completed, although a timely confession or retraction may affect penalty assessment or proof of intent.

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