Specialisation
Criminal compliance and internal investigations
Criminal compliance is only worth something if it actually works when it is needed. A properly designed organisation and management model can exempt or reduce a legal entity's liability, but what is assessed in proceedings is not the document itself: it is whether the controls actually operated, whether the supervisory body had real resources and autonomy, and whether the whistleblowing channel was genuinely used.
That is why the firm approaches this field from a defence standpoint rather than a consultancy one: a model drafted by someone who will later have to defend it in court is designed differently.
A compliance model that only exists on paper protects no one when the inspection arrives: what's at stake is the personal freedom of directors and executives, not just a fine for the company.
Scope of work
- Design and review of organisation and management models (article 31 bis of the Criminal Code)
- Direction of internal investigations preserving legal privilege
- Assessment of the board's personal criminal exposure
- Informed decision-making between self-reporting and defence
- Defence of the legal entity when its compliance model is tested
When to call
- A complaint has come in through the internal channel and a decision on how to act is needed
- The model exists but no one has tested whether it would hold up in proceedings
- An internal investigation is needed without compromising the company's procedural position
- The company is already under investigation and its compliance model is about to be assessed
Frequently asked questions
Is a generic compliance model good enough?
A model copied from a template rarely sustains an exemption, because what is assessed is not its mere existence but its adequacy for the real risks of that specific activity. A risk map that does not reflect how the company actually operates is exactly what the prosecution will use to argue that the model was only apparent.
Can what emerges from an internal investigation be used against the company?
That is the central risk, which is why the internal investigation is directed from the very first moment with procedural rigour: preserving the chain of custody, defining what material is protected by legal privilege, and documenting every decision taken. Investigating first and taking legal advice afterwards is usually what creates the problem.
Is self-reporting advisable?
It is a strategic decision that depends on what is known, what can be proven, and how likely it is that the facts will come to light through another route. A confession made before the proceedings are understood can act as a mitigating factor, but it also fixes a version of events that cannot later be refined. It should never be made before the internal investigation has been completed.
Who should sit on the supervisory body?
The law requires a body with genuinely autonomous powers of initiative and control. What is examined in proceedings is its real independence: who it reported to, what budget and resources it had, and whether its warnings had any consequence. A supervisory function without genuine autonomy is one of the weaknesses most often exploited.