Ki Group Investigation: Completion of Inquiries for Fraudulent Bankruptcy

1. The fact

   The Milan Prosecutor's Office has served the notice under Art. 415-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure to sixteen individuals involved in the management of Ki Group S.r.l., Ki Group Holding S.p.a., Bioera, and Umbria S.r.l., including Daniela Santanchè, Canio Mazzaro, and members of the board of statutory auditors. According to reports from Il Fatto Quotidiano and La Stampa, the procedural stage is the completion of preliminary investigations, a phase in which suspects can submit briefs or request to be heard before the decision on indictment. The prosecution alleges, in various capacities and according to individual responsibilities, crimes of fraudulent bankruptcy, false accounting, and aggravated fraud against the State (for 2.7 million euros linked to Invitalia funds). The diversion allegations reportedly include 2.1 million in compensation at Bioera, consulting fees of 122 thousand and 137 thousand euros, dividends of 4 million and 1.4 million, as well as tax debts of 3.3 million.

   A further aspect concerns insolvency caused by fraudulent operations. Continuing business activities allegedly aggravated the capital deficit to the detriment of creditors. For the members of the board of statutory auditors, omissive complicity is hypothesized: despite their duty to oversee management regularity, they allegedly failed to activate the legal corrective powers to curb the directors' conduct. The case is notable for the complexity arising from the holding company's status as a listed entity, which demanded particularly high standards of transparency and control.

2. 

   The rules at play

   1. Art. 216 Bankruptcy Law: punishes entrepreneurs who divert or hide assets to harm creditors, with imprisonment from three to ten years.
   2. Art. 223 Bankruptcy Law: extends bankruptcy penalties to directors and statutory auditors who caused the insolvency through intent or gross negligence.
   3. Art. 2403 and 2407 Civil Code: define statutory auditors' duties of supervision, establishing their joint liability with directors if the damage would not have occurred had they supervised with the diligence required by their office.

3. What case law says

   Supreme Court case law has consolidated the principle of active supervision by the board of statutory auditors. A purely formal review of accounting documents is insufficient: statutory auditors must react to so-called red flags, such as repeated losses or growing tax liabilities. In the absence of such reactions, liability for complicity in the crime of bankruptcy is triggered.

   Regarding damages, the prevailing approach adopts the net equity criterion to quantify the prejudice resulting from insolvency caused by fraudulent operations. The damage equals the difference between the company's net equity at the time insolvency should have been detected and that existing at the time of the actual collapse. Finally, case law clarifies that the so-called business judgment rule does not protect directors when management choices are patently irrational or aimed exclusively at delaying the inevitable bankruptcy.

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. Constantly monitor the appropriateness of directors' compensation and expense reimbursements relative to actual cash flows to prevent diversion allegations.
   2. Analytically document the economic rationality of every recovery attempt, avoiding reliance on overly optimistic projections that could be judged pretextual in criminal court.
   3. For statutory auditors, analytically and promptly record every dissent or request for clarification sent to directors to establish proof of diligence and avoid omissive complicity.

9. Update and rectification note (17 September 2026)

   In a previous version of this article, erroneous reference was made to a diversion of 1.2 million euros and an investigation thread for delayed bankruptcy from 2018 to 2022. Based on the Milan Prosecutor's Office 415-bis Notice (15.07.2026) and the 2024-2025 judicial liquidations, the text has been corrected: the investigations cover the period 2012/2015-2025 and involve four companies (Ki Group S.r.l., Ki Group Holding S.p.a., Bioera, Umbria S.r.l.). The allegations, attributed in various capacities, include bankruptcy, false accounting, aggravated fraud against the State (2.7 million), and diversions for different amounts (including 2.1 million for compensation, dividends totaling 5.4 million, and tax debts of 3.3 million), as well as insolvency caused by fraudulent operations.

References: Art. 216 R.D. 267/1942Art. 223 R.D. 267/1942Art. 2403 c.c.Art. 2407 c.c.Art. 415-bis c.p.p.Avviso 415-bis Procura Milano 15.07.2026Liquidazioni giudiziali Ki Group/Bioera/Holding 2024-2025

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