Il Superior Council of the Judiciary reject the anti-corruption bill of the Monti government. This was revealed today by the newspaper La Repubblica, anticipating the content of an opinion of the CSM which will be voted on Monday by the Reform Commission. “It seems appropriate to highlight the grave risk of initiating substantive law reforms – write the magistrates – included in the current method of calculating the limitation period for crimes, which can make the system work in vain“. In particular, the prescription will be "very short" for the new crimes introduced (trafficking of influences and corruption between private individuals), which provide for a maximum penalty of only three years.
In the sights of the Council there is then the rule which provides for unpack the crime of extortion into two cases: the "corruption by coercion", for which the penalties remain unchanged at a maximum of 12 years and worsen from 4 to 6 years at a minimum (prescription after 15 years), and "the undue induction“, for which a penalty reduction. In this second case the minimum drops from 4 to 3 years and the maximum drops from 12 to 8 years, with a consequent reduction of statute of limitations from 15 to 10 years. A change nipped across the board by the CSM.
According to the magistrates, "the conduct of induction (...) provides for a significantly lower statutory penalty than that applied up to now" and this "constitutes a particularly significant drop in the activity of contrasting a behavior that today appears to be the most widespread form of integration of the crime of extortion statistically".
But that's not enough: "In addition to the operational level, with the significant reduction of the statute of limitations for the crime, the reduction of the sentence constitutes a symbolic signal inconsistent with the intentions that animate the overall system of the proposed modifications".
Furthermore, for the same offence, the bill provides for also punish the victim of bribery by induction. The CSM considers this “a choice that raises perplexity. The expected penalty, due to its entity, up to three years, is probably not capable of constituting a serious deterrent. On the other hand it will most likely have the effect of hampering the investigation” since “it creates a link of criminal solidarity between the protagonists of the case (…) who share the interest in avoiding its investigation”. Basically, the risk is that nobody talks anymore.
