The case, explained

The Multi-Utility Case: Between Valuation Errors and Accounting Fraud

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

The recent conclusion of the first-instance trial in the Multi-Utility S.p.A. case has brought the delicate boundary between directors' technical discretion and the offense of false corporate communications back to the center of legal debate. According to press reports, the full acquittal of the former corporate officers marks a milestone in distinguishing between imprudent business management and criminally relevant conduct, focusing on the nature of credit valuations in financial statements between 2014 and 2016. Analyzing the judgment issued by the Court of Milan, this article explores how case law interprets the failure to write down assets prior to financial distress. After reconstructing the facts and applicable rules, we present a pedagogical twin case to illustrate the practical application of legal principles in a corporate crisis context.

In brief

The article analyzes the acquittal of Multi-Utility S.p.A. executives from charges of false accounting and preferential bankruptcy. The Court of Milan ruled that the failure to write down 18 million euros in receivables did not constitute a criminal offense, falling within the directors' evaluative discretion and excluding specific fraudulent intent. The distinction between technical error and punishable fraud is examined in light of established case law, concluding with operational guidance for legal and corporate professionals.

  1. The Case

    According to reports from Il Giorno and Verità e Affari, the case concerns the collapse of Multi-Utility S.p.A., a company operating in the energy and telecommunications sectors declared bankrupt in 2018. The first-instance procedimento penale recently concluded before the Court of Milan.

    The defendants were charged with false accounting and preferential bankruptcy for failing to write down approximately 18 million euros. However, the II Criminal Section issued an acquittal because the fact does not exist, recognizing that the conduct was not driven by fraudulent intent, but by a managerial assessment that proved mistaken only in hindsight.

  2. The Applicable Rules

    The core provisions are Art. 2621 of the Italian Civil Code on false corporate communications, which penalizes the presentation of untrue material facts with specific intent, and Art. 216 of the Bankruptcy Law on preferential bankruptcy.

    Equally fundamental is Art. 2426 of the Civil Code on receivables valuation criteria, which mandates the principle of estimated realizable value; its technical violation represents the necessary prerequisite for configuring fraud in a corporate context.

  3. Jurisprudence Trends

    Case law has clarified that so-called valuation fraud constitutes an offense only if the valuation is objectively inconsistent with technical criteria and such departure is not disclosed in the explanatory notes.

    Established jurisprudence emphasizes that failure to write down assets becomes criminally relevant only when uncollectibility is certain at the time of drafting. In the absence of such certainty, the decision falls within the scope of technical discretion, requiring rigorous proof of intent for a conviction.

  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

    1. Rigorously document the valuation criteria applied to impaired receivables, retaining all records of negotiations.
    2. Consistently utilize the explanatory notes to disclose deviations from accounting standards, thereby mitigating allegations of valuation fraud.
    3. Justify all payments executed during a crisis by demonstrating the necessity of maintaining minimum operations.
    4. Monitor the threshold of criminal relevance for accounting adjustments arising from subjective estimates.

References: Art. 2621 c.c.Art. 216 R.D. 267/1942Art. 2426 c.c.

Related cases

16/07/2026Acciaierie d'Italia Crisis: Pre-judgment Seizure for Environmental Damage10/07/2026Relative Priority Rule in Composition with Creditors: the Cassation Turning Point30/06/2026Copyright and AI Training: Current Trends in Content Protection for 2025
Avv. Federico Papa
Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAM

Frequently asked questions

What are the penalties for false accounting?

For unlisted companies, Art. 2621 of the Civil Code provides for imprisonment from 1 to 5 years. However, the exact penalty depends on the severity of the facts and the extent of the damage caused to shareholders or creditors.

When does a valuation error become a crime?

A valuation error becomes a crime only if it stems from a deliberate intent to deceive third parties (specific intent) and rests on objectively false data, exceeding the boundaries of reasonable technical discretion.

Is there a statute of limitations for these crimes?

Yes, the offenses of false corporate communications and bankruptcy are subject to statutes of limitations, the terms of which vary based on the maximum statutory penalty and any interrupting procedural acts.

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