The Multi-Utility Case: Between Valuation Errors and Accounting Fraud

1. The Case

   According to reports from Il Giorno and Verità e Affari, the case concerns the collapse of Multi-Utility S.p.A., a company active in the energy and telecommunications sectors, declared bankrupt in 2018. The first-degree criminal proceedings concluded recently at the Court of Milan.

   The defendants were accused of false accounting and preferential bankruptcy for failing to write down approximately 18 million euros. However, the Second Criminal Section handed down an acquittal on the grounds that the alleged fact does not exist, recognizing that the conduct was not driven by fraudulent intent but by a managerial assessment that proved wrong only in hindsight.

2. 

   The Applicable Rules

   The central provisions are Art. 2621 of the Italian Civil Code on false corporate communications, which punishes the disclosure of untrue material facts committed with specific intent, and Art. 216 of the Bankruptcy Law on preferential bankruptcy.

   Also fundamental is Art. 2426 of the Civil Code regarding credit valuation criteria, which imposes the principle of estimated realizable value; its technical violation represents the necessary prerequisite for configuring corporate fraud.

3. Jurisprudence Trends

   Case law has clarified that so-called valuation fraud constitutes a crime only if the valuation is objectively divergent from recognized technical criteria and such divergence is not disclosed in the explanatory notes.

   Established jurisprudence emphasizes that failure to write down assets becomes criminally relevant only when uncollectibility is certain at the time of drafting. In the absence of such certainty, the decision falls within the realm of technical discretion, requiring rigorous proof of specific intent to secure a conviction.

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. Lessons for Professionals

   1. Thoroughly document the valuation criteria adopted for impaired receivables, preserving evidence of recovery negotiations.
   2. Use the explanatory notes to transparently report deviations from standard accounting rules, neutralizing allegations of valuation fraud.
   3. Justify any payment executed during a crisis as necessary to maintain essential business operations.
   4. Carefully evaluate the potential criminal relevance of value adjustments stemming from subjective estimates.

References: Art. 2621 c.c.Art. 216 R.D. 267/1942Art. 2426 c.c.

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 19 June 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