{"id":18780,"date":"2022-07-18T19:27:46","date_gmt":"2022-07-18T17:27:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dev.andersen.dotandmedia.com\/?p=18780"},"modified":"2022-08-04T12:50:41","modified_gmt":"2022-08-04T10:50:41","slug":"environmental-offences-and-liability-under-legislative-decree-no-231-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dev.andersen.dotandmedia.com\/en\/environmental-offences-and-liability-under-legislative-decree-no-231-2001\/","title":{"rendered":"Environmental offences and liability under Legislative Decree no. 231\/2001"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court (III Criminal Division \u2013 Judgment 30. May 2022 No. 21034) has recently clarified under what circumstances a company can be held accountable for environmental crimes, with reference to the issue of water pollution from industrial wastewater. Specifically, the Supreme Court has identified in which cases the environmental crime can be qualified as interest or benefit of the company, which are some of the necessary elements to hold the company itself accountable.<\/p>\n

The case<\/h2>\n

In the case under consideration, a company filed appeal against its sentence, assuming that the judgment had not been properly reasoned in terms of proving the concrete existence of the company\u2019s interest (although only potential and assessable in terms of cost savings) in the commission of the crime. The plaintiff also argued that the origin of the effluent from the company had not been proven with absolute certainty because, days before the incidents in reference happened, significant weather events had occurred that could have contributed to cause the damage.<\/p>\n

In the ruling under review, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, specifying as follows.<\/p>\n