Practical guide

How to draft a denuncia per frode nelle pubbliche forniture (complaint for fraud in public supplies) with AI

3 min read · Updated September 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa

A denuncia per frode nelle pubbliche forniture (complaint for fraud in public supplies) is an essential tool for reporting unlawful conduct during the execution of contracts with the Public Administration (Pubblica Amministrazione). This crime protects the State's interest in the correct fulfillment of contractual obligations by suppliers. By using edit.legal tools, professionals can quickly analyze tender documentation and identify operational discrepancies.

In brief

A complaint under Article 356 c.p. (codice penale) must analytically describe the fraudulent behavior implemented during the execution of a supply contract with a public body. Unlike simple non-performance, frode (fraud) requires deceptive conduct that prejudices the public interest. The document must include contract references, a description of the supply defects, and a formal request for prosecution, supported by technical evidence proving the discrepancy between the goods or services provided and those agreed upon.

The steps

1.
Contextualization of the contractual relationship
The first step involves precisely identifying the underlying supply contract or tender. It is necessary to indicate the tender details, the contracting authority, and the supplier. In this phase, edit.legal helps summarize key points of the capitolato d'oneri (technical specifications) and the violated contractual clauses, providing a solid foundation for the factual description. It is essential to specify whether the goods or works were necessary for a public service or public administration.
2.
Description of the fraudulent conduct
The document must detail the artifici o raggiri (stratagems or deceptions) implemented by the supplier. Simple delay is insufficient, evidence of dolo (intent) in execution is required, such as delivering inferior quality materials or quantities different from those agreed. It is necessary to highlight how the conduct deceived the Public Administration. Technical precision is vital to distinguish frode (fraud) from mere inadempimento di contratti di pubbliche forniture (non-performance of public supply contracts) under Article 355 c.p. (codice penale).
3.
Analysis of the subjective element
The crime under Article 356 c.p. requires dolo (fraudulent intent). The complaint must argue the supplier's awareness and will to default fraudulently. It is useful to attach correspondence, formal notices, or verification reports demonstrating that the supplier persisted in deceptive conduct despite reminders or checks. edit.legal can assist in extracting and classifying relevant messages from complex document streams.
4.
Attachment of technical evidence
The complaint gains value if accompanied by technical expert reports, testing reports, or samples objectively proving the fraud. Documents demonstrating the discrepancy between what was invoiced and what was actually provided should be attached. If the fraud concerns public works, certificates of completion or defect notices are essential. The accuracy of attachments facilitates the work of the Procura della Repubblica (Public Prosecutor's Office) during the indagini preliminari (preliminary investigation) phase.
5.
Request for prosecution and formal clauses
The document must conclude with a formal request for punishment against the supplier's legal representative and any accomplices. It is fundamental to include a request for notice in case of archiviazione (dismissal motion) under Art. 408 c.p.p. (codice di procedura penale) and opposition to a decreto penale di condanna (summary conviction). It is also advisable to reserve the right to join the proceedings through a costituzione di parte civile (civil party) to seek damages for the public body.

Legal basis: Art. 356 c.p.Art. 355 c.p.Art. 333 c.p.p.Art. 408 c.p.p.D.Lgs. 36/2023 (Codice dei Contratti Pubblici)

Mistakes to avoid

Confusing simple delay in performance with criminal fraud.
Omitting the specific description of the deceptive element required by the law.
Failing to attach the contract or capitolato d'oneri (technical specifications) defining the supply's object.
Failure to identify the specific individuals responsible within the supplier's corporate organization.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Article 355 and Article 356 c.p. (codice penale)?

Article 355 punishes the simple non-fraudulent non-performance of supply contract obligations, whereas Article 356 requires frode (fraud), meaning deception or deceptive conduct during execution.

Can a public body be reported for this crime?

No, fraud in public supplies is a reato proprio (specific crime) that can only be committed by those providing goods or works to the Public Administration, not by the public body itself.

Is a querela (formal complaint) necessary to proceed under Art. 356 c.p.?

No, fraud in public supplies is a crime procedibile d'ufficio (prosecutable ex officio), given the nature of the public interest harmed.

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 18 September 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction

What edit.legal automates

—Automated extraction of supplier identification data and contract references from tender documents.
—Comparison between technical specifications and service reports to highlight technical discrepancies.
—Logical structuring of the factual narrative based on the constituent elements of Article 356 c.p.
—Semantic analysis of correspondence to detect traces of fraudulent intent (mens rea).