The case, explained

The Cappellari Case: Between Staged Crimes and Calumny

5 min read · Updated July 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa

The case of journalist Adriano Cappellari reaches a new procedural chapter, bringing focus back to the boundaries between freedom of the press and crimes against the administration of justice. According to national press reports, the proceedings involve the alleged staging of assaults and threats that purportedly misled investigating authorities between 2021 and 2022. In this in-depth analysis, we will reconstruct the legal framework of the charges of simulated crime and calumny, analyzing how the judiciary evaluates the suitability of false reports to mislead investigations. Finally, we will present a twin case to explore defense strategies and the possible outcomes of such a complex matter.

The Cappellari Case: Between Staged Crimes and Calumny

In brief

This article analyzes the indictment of Adriano Cappellari for simulated crime and calumny. It examines Articles 367 and 368 of the Penal Code regarding reports of assaults and threats deemed unfounded by the Verona Prosecutor's Office. Through a pedagogical twin case, the boundary between journalistic activity and the creation of social alarm is illustrated, offering operational insights on evidence management and the proof of direct criminal intent.

  1. The facts

    According to reports from Corriere del Veneto and Il Giornale, Adriano Cappellari, a journalist active in communication, reported between 2021 and early 2022 that he had been the target of serious threats, including bullets delivered by mail and a physical assault in Verona in January 2022.

    Investigations by the Digos and the Mobile Squad, initially aimed at protecting press freedom, took a different turn. The Prosecution hypothesized that these episodes were staged to gain professional visibility. On May 22, 2024, the Preliminary Hearing Judge of the Court of Verona ordered the indictment of Cappellari. At the current stage, the proceedings are in the first-instance trial phase.

  2. Legal framework

    The case revolves around two distinct provisions of the Penal Code: Art. 367 (Simulated crime) and Art. 368 (Calumny). Simulated crime punishes anyone who falsely asserts that a crime has occurred or simulates its traces so that criminal proceedings may be initiated; the statutory penalty ranges from one to five years of imprisonment.

    Calumny is more severe as it assumes the agent specifically blames a determined or determinable person for a crime, knowing them to be innocent. Both provisions protect the proper functioning of justice, preventing investigative resources from being wasted on unfounded proceedings or those harmful to another's honor.

  3. Case law orientation

    Case law has clarified that for simulated crime to be configured, a mere false statement is not sufficient; the conduct must be objectively capable of causing the initiation of preliminary investigations. If the falsehood or staging is so crude as to be immediately noticeable, the crime does not exist due to the unsuitability of the action.

    Regarding the crime of calumny, the courts emphasize the necessity of direct intent: the accuser must have full awareness of the accused's innocence at the time of reporting. If even a reasonable doubt or a perceptual error in good faith exists, the subjective element of calumny fails, potentially leaving only aspects of negligence that are not criminally punishable under this charge.

  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

    First, the importance of analyzing the technical compatibility of material traces before setting the defense. Second, the need to distinguish between intent and simple narrative emphasis when drafting complaints.

    Third, monitor any social alarm generated, as it heavily impacts the sentencing under Art. 133 of the Penal Code.

References: Art. 367 c.p.Art. 368 c.p.Art. 133 c.p.

Related cases

25/09/2026Supreme Court on 231 Liability and Evidence of Organizational Fault22/09/2026Supreme Court on Unauthorized Access and Dossiering: The Misuse of Digital Power21/09/2026Constitutional Court: Conditional Release and Barred Crimes
Avv. Federico Papa
Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMContent 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

Frequently asked questions

What are the risks for someone staging an assault that never happened?

They risk imprisonment from 1 to 5 years for the crime of simulated crime (Art. 367 c.p.). If the false report is explicitly directed against a specific individual known to be innocent, it constitutes the more serious crime of calumny (Art. 368 c.p.).

What is the difference between calumny and defamation?

Calumny consists of reporting a criminal offense to the authorities accusing a person known to be innocent. Defamation consists of harming someone's honor or reputation while communicating with multiple people outside of formal reports to law enforcement or judicial authorities.

Can a report be withdrawn if one realizes they made a mistake?

A retraction must occur promptly. However, since these are offenses prosecuted ex officio, if the proceeding has already started and one acted with intent, the crime of simulation or calumny is already completed, although post-crime conduct may mitigate sentencing.

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