Ongoing trial for a well-known influencer: the charge of aggravated fraud

1. The facts

   Starting in September 2025, a trial is ongoing against a well-known influencer and other individuals involved in the management of related companies and commercial partners. According to the prosecution, there was a unified plan aimed at misleading consumers through ambiguous messages spread via social media. The charge specifically concerns the promotional campaigns for well-known confectionery products. The prosecution claims that consumers were led to believe that purchasing the products would generate a donation to a well-known pediatric hospital or other charitable entities, whereas in reality, the donation had already been made in a fixed amount by the manufacturing companies, regardless of sales volume. The current procedural stage is an ongoing trial. The companies linked to the entrepreneur allegedly achieved, according to the prosecution, a profit estimated at over 2 million euros, a figure qualified as unjust profit resulting from the impairment of the buyers' intent.

2. 

   The rules in play

   The normative core of the proceedings is represented by Art. 640 of the Criminal Code, which punishes the crime of fraud committed through artifices or deceptions. Specifically, aggravated fraud is alleged pursuant to Art. 61 no. 5 of the Criminal Code, namely having taken advantage of so-called impaired defense.

   1. Art. 640 of the Criminal Code provides for imprisonment from six months to three years, with increased penalties if an aggravating circumstance occurs.
   2. Art. 61 no. 5 of the Criminal Code applies when the offender takes advantage of circumstances of time, place, or person that hinder public or private defense; jurisprudence frequently applies this to online sales, where direct contact between the parties is absent.
   3. The involved companies are not liable under Legislative Decree no. 231/2001, as Art. 640 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code is not a predicate offense, but they have been sanctioned by the Antitrust Authority (AGCM) on different grounds for unfair commercial practices.

3. What the jurisprudence says

   The case law of the Supreme Court of Cassation has clarified that, in the context of e-commerce and distance sales, the use of digital means generally constitutes the aggravating circumstance of impaired defense. The underlying principle is that the distance between buyer and seller prevents the former from directly and promptly verifying the truthfulness of the counterparty's assertions. The courts have also specified that the relationship of trust established between an influencer and their followers can act as a means of misleading, reducing the consumer's level of critical scrutiny. Consolidated case law distinguishes mere advertising puffery from a prearranged deception regarding the legal cause of the contract: fraud is established when the consumer is induced to enter into the contract by a false representation of reality affecting their decision-making process, such as in the case of a purchase motivated by charitable intent.

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. What it teaches professionals

   1. Clearly separate commercial revenue disclosures from fixed charitable donations in business communications to prevent allegations of misleading messaging or fraud.
   2. Implement robust internal audit procedures for social media campaigns to ensure full alignment between promotional content and underlying contractual terms.
   3. Draft comprehensive indemnity and guarantee clauses in contracts between influencers and corporate partners, strictly regulating liability for the accuracy of published content.
   4. Continuously monitor legal precedent regarding the use of digital technologies and mass communication channels as aggravating circumstances in crimes against property.

9. Update and rectification note (17 September 2026)

   The previous version of this article incorrectly stated that the proceedings were at the conclusion of preliminary investigations and hypothesized the application of Legislative Decree 231/2001 to the involved companies. Following editorial verification, the text has been corrected to reflect that the trial has been ongoing since September 2025 and that the crime of fraud under Art. 640 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code is not a predicate offense for Legislative Decree 231/2001 (the companies were sanctioned by AGCM on different grounds). Furthermore, in the absence of retrievable primary judicial documents, the names of the real parties have been anonymized in compliance with editorial rules.

References: Articolo 640 c.p.Articolo 61 n. 5 c.p.

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 17 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