The case, explained
Stellantis Case: Conclusion of Investigations for Aggravated Fraud Against the State
5 min read · Updated July 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa
The news regarding the conclusion of preliminary investigations in the Stellantis case, formalized on April 17, 2024, marks a turning point in a complex legal matter that centers on the boundary between technological innovation and ordinary industrial production. According to reports from the national press, the investigation by the Turin Public Prosecutor's Office focuses on the provision of approximately 40 million euros in public subsidies for electric mobility between 2017 and 2022. In this article, we will explore the legal foundations of the aggravated fraud charges, analyzing the distinctions between eligible research and routine activities. Finally, we will present a didactic twin case to illustrate how these dynamics translate into legal practice and the available defense strategies.
In brief
The article analyzes the conclusion of investigations against Stellantis (FCA Italy) for alleged aggravated fraud against the State. Prosecutors hypothesize the use of artifices to obtain R&D funds for ordinary production projects. The analysis covers Art. 640-bis of the Criminal Code and 231/2001 administrative liability, distinguishing fraud from undue perception. Through a simulated case, it highlights challenges in proving criminal intent and the innovative nature of costs.
The fact
On April 17, 2024, the Turin Public Prosecutor's Office served the notice of conclusion of preliminary investigations (Art. 415-bis c.p.p.) against FCA Italy S.p.A. and several former executives. According to reports from La Stampa and Milano Finanza, the prosecution's hypothesis concerns the undue procurement of approximately 40 million euros granted by the Ministry of Economic Development between 2017 and 2022.
These funds were intended for research projects on hybrid and electric engines. Rai News 24 reports that, according to the prosecution, the company allegedly submitted reports containing inflated costs or costs related to ordinary industrial production, portraying them as experimental R&D through accounting artifices. The case is currently at the stage of closed investigations, and the presumption of innocence applies to all suspects.
The rules
The main provision is Art. 640-bis of the Criminal Code (Aggravated fraud for obtaining public funds), which punishes those who obtain public grants through artifices or deceit with imprisonment from 2 to 7 years. In parallel, Legislative Decree 231/2001 applies (Art. 24), governing the administrative liability of entities: if the crime is committed in the company's interest or benefit, it faces severe financial and disqualifying sanctions.
Art. 316-ter of the Criminal Code (Undue perception of public funds) is also relevant as a subsidiary rule triggered when complex artifices are absent but a false declaration exists. Finally, Art. 322-ter provides for the mandatory forfeiture of the crime's proceeds upon conviction.
The case law
The case law of the Supreme Court has clarified that establishing aggravated fraud requires active deceptive conduct aimed at misleading the Public Administration. Regarding R&D, the Court distinguishes between process innovation, which involves overcoming the state of the art, and ordinary maintenance, which is not eligible for subsidies.
Regarding entity liability, established jurisprudence requires that the 231 Model be effectively implemented, not merely adopted; the simple existence of a manual does not exempt the company from organizational fault if transparent information flows regarding reported costs are lacking.
- Try edit.legal AI
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.
What it teaches professionals
First, the importance of specific 231 protocols for reporting. Second, the necessity of preparing technological dossiers contemporaneous with the activity, documenting the advancement over the state of the art. Third, caution with external consultants: criminal liability remains with the company and its top management.
References: Articolo 640-bis Codice PenaleArticolo 316-ter Codice PenaleD.Lgs. 231/2001Articolo 415-bis Codice di Procedura PenaleArticolo 322-ter Codice Penale
Related cases
Frequently asked questions
What are the penalties for aggravated fraud involving public funds?
The prescribed imprisonment ranges from 2 to 7 years, in addition to mandatory forfeiture of the profit. For companies, Legislative Decree 231/2001 provides for financial penalties that can exceed one million euros and disqualifying sanctions such as a ban on contracting with the Public Administration.
What happens if the funds were spent correctly but the reporting is formal?
If the funds were actually used for the intended purpose but there are only formal errors or partially inaccurate declarations without deceptive artifices, the crime could be downgraded to undue perception of public funds (Art. 316-ter c.p.) or remain within a purely administrative scope.
How long is the statute of limitations for this type of crime?
The ordinary limitation period is 6 years, which can extend to 7 years and 6 months in case of interrupting acts. Since these are crimes with prolonged execution when funding is paid in installments, the limitation period usually runs from the date the last installment is received.
Verified legal research and drafting with edit.legal
Legal research and drafting with citations checked against official databases. edit.legal is free to try, no credit card.
Try edit.legal for free