LEGAL FRAMEWORKS AND INVESTIGATIVE TOOLSFOR COMBATING ORGANIZED TRANSNATIONAL CRIME
IN THE ITALIAN EXPERIENCE
Giuliano Turone*

I. THE ITALIAN CONCEPT OF AN “ORGANIZED CRIMINAL GROUP”
Generally speaking, we know that crimes can be committed either by isolated individuals or by a pluralityof individuals joining together. Furthermore, a plurality of individuals joining together to commit crimes may
have a continuing criminal programme and a permanent organizational structure. Only in this case can we
say that these individuals form an organized crime group, according to the Italian legal tradition. In otherwords, the Italian concept of “organized criminal group” requires an indefinite programme of serious crimes
and a lasting organizational structure. For instance, when we talk about an organized criminal group dealing
with drug-trafficking we mean a continuing criminal enterprise – ranging, in some cases, from production to
consumers’ markets – which must be necessarily carried on by a plurality of people (three or more) with apersistent criminal programme and a strong and stable organizational structure. Moreover, an organizedcriminal group is necessarily an economic criminal enterprise, because it moves significant amounts ofmoney which enrich the operating group, need to be laundered and reinvested, give rise to induced
investment and consumption and then pollute the legal economy of the concerned area.
If we compare the aforesaid notion of “organized criminal group” with the relevant definition given by
Article 2 of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime adopted on 15 November
2000 (“Organized criminal group” shall mean a structured group of three or more persons, existing for aperiod of time and acting in concert with the aim of committing one or more serious crimes or offences
established in accordance with this Convention, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or othermaterial benefit), we can notice that the Italian notion is basically consistent with the UN definition, except
for a significant detail: a group of persons acting with the aim of committing only one specific crime (nomatter how serious the crime and how structured the group) could not be classified as an “organizedcriminal group” according to the Italian legislation.1 As for the rest, the approach to organized crime isbroadly the same, particularly as for the perception of its economic and entrepreneurial dimension (thepurpose to “obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit”, according to the UN
definition).
In fact, and in a certain sense, organized crime can be regarded (and is actually regarded by Italian legal
practice) as a particular kind of economic crime. We know that the expression economic crime is
traditionally intended as equivalent to white collar crime, i.e. a criminal conduct being committed only
through a simple misuse of the legal economy (which is not the case of the typical “organized crime”).
However, and in spite of the traditional terminology, that expression is now employed more and more
broadly, extending it to those involved in organized crime, since those people directly create their own
economy, which is itself a criminal economy, being supplied through a great number of illegal profit-oriented
activities.
As a matter of fact, organized crime is any group of people committing systematically serious crimes
having an economic aspect with a sort of a business organization, where costs, profits, money launderings,* Judge of the Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) of Italy, Rome.
1 Furthermore, the Italian case law requires for the criminal association an ‘organizational structure’ which has to be durable
and more complex than the one implied by the UN Convention (compare the definition of “structured group” given in Article
2: “a group that is not randomly formed for the immediate commission of an offence and that does not need to have formallydefined roles for its members, continuity of its membership or a developed structure”).

48

134TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

investments and reinvestments are programmed with an entrepreneurial approach, so that the group may
acquire a favourable position within an illegal market and, through that, and through consequent
reinvestments, within the legal economy itself.
This being the general concept of “organized criminal group”, it is important to note that the Italianlegislature introduced into the Penal Code some specific legal provisions in order to classify, depict andpunish the different offences (‘association crimes’) that shall be ascribed to the subjects accused of being
members of the different criminal groups which may come into consideration.
Then we can distinguish between two main categories of ‘association crimes’: the common-type
association crime (the basic pattern of it, plus two specific subclasses) and the so called ‘mafia-type’
association crime, the latter being characterized – in addition to the common elements – by a rather peculiar‘mafia-method’.
We shall better clarify all this in the next paragraphs. There we shall also see how the mafia-type criminalgroups have a special skill and an edge on other criminal groups – in performing their illegal andentrepreneurial activities – thanks to their peculiar code of silence and force of intimidation (the ‘mafia
method’: see infra chapter II.C), and we shall see how the Italian legal system is trying to tackle them.

II. THE PROVISIONS OF CRIMINAL ASSOCIATION OF THE ITALIAN LAW
A. Introduction: the Profit-Oriented and the Transnational Dimension
Let’s come then to the strategy which the Italian legislature deemed useful in order to attack organizedcrime as a general target, then organized transnational crime and mafia groups as a special target, in the fieldof penal law, keeping in mind their profit-oriented dimension.
In the Italian experience, the suitable venue for any legal provision concerning criminal organizations is
the special part of the Penal Code in which some provisions of association crimes have been formulated;each one of them is specifically defined, in order to cover the whole range of the possible criminal groups
having the entrepreneurial dimension which I mentioned above. The same result can be reached with legal
provisions of conspiracy, according to the Anglo-Saxon law tradition. But I will now describe the solution
offered by the Roman law tradition, particularly by Italian law, where a description is given of a number of
specific ‘association crimes’.
In Italy we have defined four different kinds of association crime which are suitable to attack organizedcrime and its entrepreneurial dimension. We have some others, concerning terrorism and conducts against
the Constitution, but these ones are out of the scope of this presentation.
Then, four association crimes. Three of them are strictly related to each other: the common-type
association crime, which is the basic and generic pattern of association crime, and its two direct and specificsubclasses, namely the drug-trafficking association crime and the trafficking-in-persons association crime.
The fourth one is more peculiar and is known as the mafia-type association crime.
It is fitting to talk about all four of them, because the common-type one presents a general scheme whichbroadly applies to the other ones as well. On the other hand, organized crime is a general category to which
specific and sectorial organized criminal groups (including the mafia-type ones) belong. In other words, we
can regard organized crime as a complex phenomenon, but still we also can maintain an overall view of it, in
consideration of the entrepreneurial and potentially transnational dimension that seems to be a constant andunfailing feature of every single criminal organization, no matter whether it is assisted or not by the mafiatype force of intimidation and no matter what is the illegal market being dealt with. And indeed, due to theglobal economy which characterizes the age we live in, the profit-oriented dimension and the transnational
dimension of today’s organized crime phenomena are deeply and evidently interconnected.

B. The Common-Type Association Crime and Its Subclasses
1. The Common-Type Association Crime
The first association crime is the most general and simple. It is the common type of criminal association,i.e. the basic and generic pattern of it, which occurs when at least three persons join together with the aim of49

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.73

committing a general programme of crimes and with an internal permanent organizational structure suitable
for same (Article 416, paragraphs 1-5, Italian Penal Code). This could have an entrepreneurial dimension
when the planned crimes are serious and profit-oriented and when the organizational level is somehow
sophisticated. We can imagine, for example, a group of white-collar criminals having a programme of strictly
economic crimes. But we can also think of a group of people who deal professionally with the smuggling of
migrants or weapons, or money laundering, or trafficking in stolen cars, and so on. If no sufficient evidence
exists of a specific recourse to the ‘mafia method’, this common-type criminal association applies. The
relevant norm provides imprisonment of one to five years for the simple (rank and file) members of theassociation, and imprisonment of three to seven years for chiefs and organizers.
The general pattern of the common-type association crime (three or more persons joining together withthe aim of committing a general and indefinite programme of crimes and with an internal permanentorganizational structure suitable for the performance of such a programme) is also valid for its two ‘sectorial’
subclasses, that is to say the drug-trafficking association crime and the trafficking-in-persons association
crime.
2. The Drug-Trafficking Association Crime
The second association crime is just a special form of the first one and applies – specifically and instead of
the first one – to any criminal association acting in drug trafficking (Article 74 of Law no. 309 of 1990 on
Narcotics). In other words it applies when the indefinite programme of delinquency being carried on by thecriminal group concerns drug trafficking crimes. The punishment in this case is heavier: minimum ten yearsof imprisonment for simple members and minimum twenty years of imprisonment for chiefs and organizers,
unless particular mitigating circumstances are present. Furthermore, the punishment provided for thiscrime shall increase if the programme of delinquency concerns both drug trafficking crimes and othercrimes, because both association schemes (the common one and the drug-trafficking one) would formallycoexist in such a case, since the two incriminating provisions protect two different public interests.
According to Article 51, paragraph 3-bis of the Italian Code of Penal Procedure, the drug-trafficking
association crimes are investigated under the supervision of the special anti-mafia units at the District
Offices of the Public Prosecutor.
3. The Trafficking-in-Persons Association Crime
This association crime has been recently created by Law no. 228 of 2003 on Trafficking in Human Beings,
by introducing into the Italian Penal Code the new Paragraph 6 of Article 416 (the aforesaid basic provisionof the common-type association crime) and by rewording Articles 600, 601 and 602 (on slavery and similar
practices) of the same Penal Code. The new provisions were introduced pursuant to the Protocol to Prevent,
Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, adopted by the UN General
Assembly in November 2000.
The trafficking-in-persons association crime is also a special form of the common-type association crimeand applies – specifically and instead of the first one – to any criminal association acting in the relevant
illegal market. In other words, it applies when the indefinite programme of delinquency being carried on by
the criminal group concerns offences of slavery and trafficking in human beings, as they are described in the
new wording of Articles 600, 601 and 602 of the Penal Code, in such way as to be consistent with thedefinition given in Article 3 of the aforesaid Protocol: “‘trafficking in persons’ shall mean the recruitment,
transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or otherforms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability
or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control overanother person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of
the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery orpractices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.”
The relevant norm (Article 416 Paragraph 6 of the Penal Code) provides imprisonment of four to nine
years for the simple members of the association, and imprisonment of five to fifteen years for chiefs andorganizers. Again, the punishment provided for this crime shall increase if the programme of delinquency
concerns also other crimes. However, if the programme of delinquency should include drug-trafficking

50

134TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

crimes as well, then the basic penalty should be the heavier one established for the drug-trafficking
association, and the increase should apply on that penalty.
According to Article 51 paragraph 3-bis of the Italian Code of Penal Procedure, the trafficking-in-persons
association crimes are investigated under the supervision of the special anti-mafia units at the District
Offices of the Public Prosecutor.
4. Common Features of the Three Aforesaid Association Schemes
It is fitting to emphasize that the three aforesaid association schemes are the only ones which may apply
if no sufficient evidence exists of a specific recourse to the ‘mafia method’.
The evidence of these three association crimes is reached when we can prove that at least three people
joined together with a substantial association agreement, giving themselves the suitable permanentorganizational structure, and giving themselves an open programme of crimes, i.e. a programme of crimes
which is not previously defined as to the number of crimes to be committed.
On the other hand, the evidence for every single membership can be established by proving that a single
defendant gave a contribution - even slight, but not meaningless - to the existence of the criminal group. An
example: let’s consider a criminal group trafficking in narcotics and stolen cars. The owner of a garage where
the cars are kept and the narcotics are hidden gives a contribution to the life of the group and can be accused
to be a member of it, even without any other specific conduct: provided he is acting voluntarily with at least
two other people, being aware of the improper origin of the cars, and being aware of the illegal economic
business and drug trafficking being dealt with in his own premises.2
When this evidence is established, a punishment is provided for the association crime itself, theoreticallyeven if not one of the specific programmed crimes has been committed yet.3 Of course, specific crimes beingcommitted within the association (drug purchases, car thefts, etc.) shall be proven separately with regard to
every single person being accused, and for each one of the specific crimes being proven a separate
punishment - or sometimes an increase in punishment - is provided.
The drug-trafficking association crime and the trafficking-in-persons association crime are clearly liable
to apply to criminal enterprises with a strong transnational dimension, but the same can be said of thecommon-type association crime, whose provision is often employed in Italy in order to incriminate membersof criminal organizations dealing systematically on a transnational basis with money laundering, smuggling of
migrants or weapons, trafficking in stolen cars and other illegal profit-oriented activities.

C. The Mafia-Type Association Crime
1. The Legal Definition of ‘Mafia’ and the Code of Silence and Intimidation
In very brief terms, and according to the Italian legal definition given in Article 416-bis, Paragraph 3, of
the Penal Code, we can say that ‘Mafia’ is a particular kind of organized crime being characterized by a very
peculiar force of intimidation and a deep-rooted code of silence strictly connected thereto. We shall see soon
some other features which also typify mafia groups, but those other features are not really exclusive tomafia, they may belong to other criminal phenomena as well, while the peculiar force of intimidation I’m
talking about is an exclusive feature of mafia. In other words, the Italian legal system takes into account thata mafia group is an organized criminal group which has a long history of violence and intimidation behind it:
2 Compare Article 5, Paragraph 1, of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, which takes into
account both common law and civil law systems in order to outline the “Criminalization of participation in an organizedcriminal group”. The part reflecting the civil law tradition is sub-paragraph (a) (ii), which indicates the following conduct to beestablished as criminal offence: “Conduct by a person who, with knowledge of either the aim and general criminal activity of anorganized criminal group or its intention to commit the crimes in question, takes an active part in: a. Criminal activities of theorganized criminal group; b. Other activities of the organized criminal group in the knowledge that his or her participation willcontribute to the achievement of the above-described criminal aim”.
3 This is also consistent with Article 5, Paragraph 1, of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime,
which recommends in sub-paragraph (a) that criminalization of ‘participation in an organized criminal group’ be established as
an autonomous criminal offence, i.e. “distinct from those involving the attempt or completion of the criminal activity”.

51

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.73

this ‘history’ of violence and intimidation – for the reason of being well-known in the affected territory – has
itself a strong threatening effect, so that the criminal group can easily acquire unlawful advantages throughthe simple unlawful use of other people's fear, mostly even without need of explicit and specific new threats.
The recourse to this peculiar force of intimidation and to the relevant code of silence constitute the so-called‘mafia method’.
Let’s go back to the UN definition of the expression organized criminal group: according to that definition(slightly readjusted in order to make it consistent, as we said supra in section I, with the Italian legal notionof ‘criminal association’), an organized criminal group is “a structured group of three or more persons,existing for a period of time and acting in concert with the aim of committing […] serious crimes or offences[…] in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit”.
Well, in the Italian approach, mafia-type organized crime is all this and something more, since it presents
some further typical features, the main one being the mentioned code of silence and intimidation, capable ofcreating a diffuse halo of fear around the criminal group, even without any need of direct threats. Then, as aconsequence of this peculiar force of intimidation, the mafia-type criminal organization easily controls
markets and territories, somehow putting itself in competition with governmental institutions. Finally, as afurther consequence of all this, it has a strong tendency to corrupt public officers, taint public institutions
and even taint the political life of the affected area.
Through the privileges deriving from all this, mafia-type organized crime is in a position to acquire astronger economic power and a stronger international dimension, since its money-laundering activities
move without frontiers taking advantage of the international financial system. And a strong code of silence
and intimidation turns out to be very helpful also in this international dimension.
In other words, when we say mafia-type organized crime we simply mean a particularly sophisticatedform of organized transnational crime. It is interesting to note that the expression organized transnational
crime was first used by the United Nations in 1994 in a very important document which paid great attention
to mafia-type criminal organizations. The document in question is the Naples Political Declaration and
Global Action Plan against Organized Transnational Crime, which was approved by the United Nations
General Assembly on 23 December 1994 in view of the dangers connected to the international dimension oforganized crime.4
This document affirmed inter alia the need for “particular efforts towards defeating the social andeconomic power of criminal organizations and their ability to infiltrate legitimate economies, to launder theircriminal proceeds and to use violence and terror”. Furthermore, the United Nations document urged theinternational community to adopt a generally agreed concept of organized transnational crime, and to
consider the possibility of elaborating a convention in that field penalizing participation in criminal
associations or conspiracies (which actually happened with the Convention adopted on 15 November 2000).
The Naples document also recommended a deep analysis of the experience of those States which haveheavily confronted organized crime and mafia groups, as well as a careful consideration of the characteristicsof organized transnational crime. The document pointed out these characteristics – including among themthe code of silence and intimidation – in the following five points:• Hierarchical links or personal relationships which permit leaders to control the group;• A code of silence and intimidation used to secure impunity and other unlawful advantages;• A potential for expansion into new activities and beyond national borders in co-operation with othertransnational criminal groups;• Violence, intimidation and corruption used to earn profits or control territories or markets;• The laundering of illicit proceeds both in furtherance of criminal activity and to infiltrate thelegitimate economy.
On this basis, we may conclude that ‘mafia-type criminality’ is perhaps the most sophisticated kind of‘organized transnational crime’. The word ‘mafia’, which is of Arabian-Sicilian origin, belongs to the
4 U.N. Economic and Social Council, Naples Political Declaration and Global Action Plan against Organized Transnational

Crime, 21-23 November 1994, Doc. E/CONF.88/L.4.

52

134TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

terminology and historical experience of some specific continental European countries, such as Italy andlater, Russia; the more general expression ‘organized transnational crime’ belongs to the Anglo-Saxon
terminology, which has been borrowed by the United Nations.
In this paper I will try to focus on the matter of fighting mafia groups and organized transnational crime
taking into consideration the strategies with which Italy experimented effectively in this field, particularly inthe last thirty years and – more incisively – after 1982 (when the specific incriminating provision of mafiatype associations entered into force) and after 1992 (when the special anti-mafia units at the District Officesof the Public Prosecutor were created, with the specific task of supervising investigations on mafia crimes,
in conformity to Article 51 paragraph 3-bis of the Italian Code of Penal Procedure).
I must emphasize, anyway, that these strategies have been dealing not only with mafia groups but alsowith other organized crime groups which, in spite of not being assisted by the mafia-type force of
intimidation, nevertheless present a strong economic and transnational dimension (such as criminal groups
trafficking in drugs or in human beings with no evidence of recourse to the mafia method).
2. The Elements of the Mafia-type Association Crime
The general pattern of the common-type association crime (see supra in section II.B.4) is also somehow
valid for mafia-type criminality as well, since the specific incriminating provision created for the mafia
associations (Article 416-bis of the Penal Code) is a special, although much more complex and sophisticatedpattern, derived from the common-type provision. Article 416-bis was introduced into the Penal Code by Law
no. 646 of 1982. You can see an English translation of this legal provision attached as Appendix to this paper.
The association is mafia-type when the members exploit systematically a situation of environmental
intimidation, and a diffused condition of subjection deriving therefrom (‘a code of silence and intimidation’according to the aforesaid United Nations document), in order to commit crimes or in order to acquire thecontrol of economic activities or to acquire unlawful advantages. The punishment is heavy: minimum five
years of imprisonment and in case of particular aggravating circumstances it can increase up to twenty-two
years for simple members and thirty years for chiefs and organizers. Each one of the specific crimes(extortions, murders, etc.) being committed within the association as part of its programme shall bepunished separately.5
A specific aggravating circumstance applies when the criminal group has weapons or explosives at its
disposal for the pursuit of its aims, no matter whether weapons and/or explosives are hidden or stored up(Article 416-bis, Paragraphs 4 and 5). Another aggravating circumstance applies when the members of thecriminal group operate the investment of criminal assets (the proceeds of specific criminal offences) in legal
economic activities, whose control has been or is being acquired through the mafia method (Article 416-bis,Paragraph 6).
A mafia-type association may also be, at the same time, a drug-trafficking association (or an association
trafficking in human beings, or in weapons, or in stolen cars, etc.), and in these cases, according to Italian law,the different association incriminations may occur and apply together, and an increased punishment will apply.
The mafia-type association crime has been defined by the Italian legislature, observing the typical modus
operandi of the traditional Sicilian mafia. However, the result was a general legal definition, which applies toany criminal group acting in the same way, no matter in what part of the country the group might be active,
and no matter how the group might be named. This is why the Italian legal definition of mafia-type
association may be of some interest also in other countries, where new mafias may come to life.
First of all, Article 416-bis outlines the mafia way of acting, the mafia method, saying that a criminal
association is mafia-type when the members pursue their goals using – as we will see soon – three particular
instruments, which constitute the legal definition of the ‘code of silence and intimidation’. Then Article 416bis outlines the goals which can be pursued by a mafia group, i.e. the mafia purposes: they can be either
5 Article 7 of Law no. 203 of 1991 establishes an aggravating circumstance for each one of the specific criminal offences beingcommitted within a mafia-type association as part of its programme.

53

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.73

criminal in nature (such as the perpetration of crimes) or formally legal (such as the control of economic
enterprises). In order to better clarify the matter, we shall quote the relevant paragraph of Article 416-bis(Paragraph 3), underlining the part concerning the mafia method and italicizing the part concerning the mafia
purposes:“Mafia-type unlawful association is said to exist when the participants take advantage of the intimidating
power of the association and of the resulting conditions of submission and silence to commit criminal
offences, to manage or in any way control, either directly or indirectly, economic activities, concessions,authorizations, public contracts and services, or to obtain unlawful profits or advantages for themselves orfor any other persons, or with a view to prevent or limit the freedom to vote, or to get votes for themselves
or for other persons on the occasion of an election”.
The first instrument of the mafia method – the main one – is the force of intimidation proceeding fromthe association bond itself (in the Italian original: ‘forza di intimidazione del vincolo associativo’). That means
an autonomous force of intimidation, deriving from the history itself of the group, from its consolidated
reputation for violence, so that it has a persistent frightening charge, even without any need of specificthreats to be made. The two other instruments which complete the mafia method are consequences of thisforce of intimidation: 1) a condition of general subjection suffered by other people, due to the fear producedby the group; 2) a condition of more specific subjection, that produces a general attitude of silence andrefusal – outside and inside the mafia group – to the possibility of being co-operative with investigating
State authorities.
In short, a mafia-type association is criminal association acting through a wrongful use of other people’s
fear and subjection. By this method, it pursues its purposes, which are also listed by the legal provision in arather complicated way, but in a way which can be simplified and summarized as follows: it pursues unlawfuladvantages through the mafia method, either by committing specific criminal offences or – theoretically even
without committing specific criminal offences – by acquiring an unlawful control of legal economic activities(‘unlawful’ as it is pursued through the mafia method). Even more briefly, we can say that the mafia-type
association is the one which pursues unlawful advantages through a pattern of wrongful use of fear.
As a matter of fact, the most general purpose of the Italian mafia-type association – among the ones listedby the legal provision of Article 416-bis – that is the purpose of reaching ‘unlawful advantages’, has a breadthof meaning sufficient to embrace all the other aims that may be pursued by a mafia group. As a consequence,
the mafia-type association may be as well regarded as a criminal association which deliberately and unjustly
exploits the fear and subjection of other persons in order to pursue the acquisition of undue benefits,
through an ‘enterprise planning’ which draws no substantial distinction between one or other of the various
and more specific purposes listed in the legal provision.
We already know that this ‘enterprise planning’ could be carried on even without committing specificcrimes simply by exploiting the fear and subjection of other people. That notwithstanding, the systematic
exploitation, by the criminal group, of its enduring ‘intimidatory position’ turns out to imply automatically a
programme of crimes involving, as a minimum, threats and coercion: in other words, the mafia group will
always maintain this minimal programme of crimes, since it will always consider specific threats and specificacts of coercion as instruments to be used if necessary. However, the greater the enduring intimidating
power of the group, the smaller the actual need for specific threats and specific acts of coercion.
Keeping in mind all this, we may conclude that the evidence of the general structure of the mafia-type
association crime is usually reached proving specific conditions of fear being exploited by the group, andproving the unlawful advantages proceeding therefrom. Furthermore, this evidence can be reached even if
no evidence exists of specific conducts of violence or threat. It must be noted, on the other hand, thatspecific violence and threat may well belong to a common criminal association: in fact, a pattern of wrongful
use of fear is something more, and something different.
I give an example taken from experience: it came to be relevant in a court trial, as a proof of the mafia
method, that the sale of real estate for a price far below its actual value was due to the fact that it was proventhat the seller was in a condition of fear and subjection, and the buyer was a member of a drug-trafficking
mafia group exploiting ‘a code of silence and intimidation’.

54

134TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

This example clearly shows that the objectives pursued by a mafia-type association may well be formallylegal objectives (such as the purchase of real estate at a very low price), but they are made illegal by the factthat they are pursued by using unlawful means: namely by regularly exploiting the association’s ‘code ofsilence and intimidation’ and its capability to strike terror, and by regularly exploiting the victims’ subjective
condition of fear.
The incriminating provision on mafia-type associations clearly pays great attention to the illegal profits ofthe concerned criminal groups and establishes that, in case of conviction for this association crime, proceeds
and instruments of crime must be always confiscated (Article 416-bis, Paragraph 7). We shall come back tothis issue infra in section III.B.1.
3. The Typical Incriminating Conduct of Members of a Mafia-Type Association
In accordance with the general pattern of the common-type association crime (see supra section II.B.4),
the evidence for every single membership within a mafia-type association can be established by proving thata single defendant gave a contribution – even slight, but not meaningless – to the activities and to theexistence itself of the criminal group. In other words, a member of the association must give a contribution
which goes beyond simple isolated participation in a single act of the association itself: for instance, being anaccomplice in a single criminal offence referable to an organized criminal group does not mean necessarily
being a member of it. On the other hand, if a person, without being a victim of coercion, and being aware of
his or her deed, places a building at the criminal group’s disposal for the pursuit of its aims, then he or she
gives a contribution to the life itself of the criminal enterprise and proves to be a member of it.
In Italian legal practice and case law a long-lasting and rather pedantic discussion took place on thepossibility of distinguishing between a real internal membership in the mafia association and an external
complicity in the association crime. Some jurists regard this debate as futile, since in any case the crimewould be the same as the one described in Article 416-bis. Usually, legal practice prefers to recognize an
external complicity in the contribution given to a mafia association by white-collar subjects (such as corrupt
civil servants or politicians), who entered into a business relationship with a mafia group in order to pursue
their own interests.
The relationship between a mafia association and an entrepreneur, being originally a victim of mafia
racketeering, may become particularly problematic when the subject enters into such a business relationshipwith the mafia group to turn his or her position of victim into a profitable position (in a given market), in theframework of an agreement which bears mutual benefits. If the entrepreneur proves to give a contribution to
the life of the criminal group gaining for himself or herself advantages from its enduring ‘intimidatory
position’, he or she can be incriminated for participation in the mafia-type association crime. In this caselegal practice would prefer as well to recognize an ‘external complicity’. In the framework of theracketeering activity carried on by mafia groups, the problem of drawing a clear distinction between
entrepreneur-victims and entrepreneur-accomplices is a major problem facing Italian case law.
4. The Italian Mafia-Type Association and the Problem of International Double Criminality
The final Resolution of the U.N. World Ministerial Conference on Organized Transnational Crime of 1994
expressly stated that “in order to effectively combat organized crime, States must overcome its code ofsilence and intimidation”, and affirmed the desirability of a precise definition of ‘organized crime’, capable ofincluding also its possible intimidating power, besides its international and profit-oriented dimension.
Furthermore, in one of the base documents of that World Conference, Article 416-bis of the Italian Penal
Code and the United States Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Statute were presented
as models for an effective strategy to fight organized transnational crime: “The numerous indictments in the
United States on the basis of the RICO legislation and the positive results of the implementation of Article
416-bis of the Italian criminal legislation suggest that the extension of those categories to other national
legislations may have definite advantages.”6
6 U.N. Economic and Social Council, National legislation and its adequacy to deal with the various forms of organizedtransnational crime; appropriate guidelines for legislative and other measures to be taken at the national level,
Doc.E/CONF,88/3, Naples, 25 August 1994, p. 7.

55

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.73

As a matter of fact, there are quite a number of interesting similarities between the Italian Mafia Statuteand the United States RICO Statute, the former representing a typical civil law approach and the latter atypical common law approach to transnational organized crime. A comparison between the two systems
could be productive, although this is not really the suitable venue for such analysis.
However, since problems of double criminality between different legal systems may constitute a serious
obstacle to international judicial assistance, a rapid survey would certainly be useful on the problem of
double criminality, which the Italian mafia-type association may face in a common law system, where thecrime of ‘conspiracy’ exists instead of the civil law ‘criminal association’. To this particular effect, thecomparison with the legal system of the United States turns out to be particularly productive.
Of course, in practical terms, when we consider a specific indictment for an offence of mafia-type
association, double criminality is not a real problem if we have overwhelming evidence about a significant
number of grave specific crimes (murders, drug transactions, extortions, etc.) committed in a significant
period of time in the framework of the mafia association. But how can the problem be faced, with respect to acommon law system based on conspiracy, if we don’t have such evidence, but do have significant evidence ofconsiderable ‘unlawful advantages’ acquired by exploiting the ‘enduring intimidating power’ of a
sophisticated criminal enterprise? This is an interesting legal question. Let’s try to find the answer to it.
Common law conspiracy is usually defined as “an agreement between two or more persons to do an
unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means”. In the federal system of the United States, conspiracy ispunishable as a crime – according to Section 371, Title 18 of the U.S. Code – “if two or more persons
conspire [....] to commit any offence [....] and one or more of such persons does any act to effect the object of
the conspiracy [....]”.
This is the general scheme of conspiracy. There are other special forms of it, such as the conspiracy
specific to organized crime and defined in the RICO Statute: however, for the moment, I will take into
account only the general scheme, because – paradoxically enough – the general scheme of conspiracy might
better assist the research for a solution to our problem of double criminality of the Italian mafia association.
On the other hand, in this general scheme, an agreement to pursue formally legal objectives by unlawfulmeans may also constitute a ‘conspiracy’, a feature which is particularly consistent with the legal frameworkof the Italian mafia association.
Then, according to this general scheme, a crime of conspiracy is committed when at least two people
reached a specific agreement to commit one or more offences, provided that there was, on the part of one ofthe participants, even unknown to the others, at least one ‘overt act’ aimed at achieving the purposes of theagreement.
Well, a solution to our problem of double criminality can be found by simply applying this scheme ofconspiracy to the crime of extortion as it is defined by the federal law of the United States: “the term
‘extortion’ means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actualor threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right” (Section 1951.b.2., Title 18, U.S. Code)(emphasis added). In other words, the Italian mafia-type association may be considered in the United States
as a conspiracy to commit extortion by wrongful use of fear, provided that an ‘agreement’ and an ‘overt act’ –consistent with the general scheme of conspiracy – are recognizable in common law within the available
evidentiary framework.
Let’s now come to the special scheme of conspiracy defined by the United States RICO Statute (Section
1962, subsections a-d, Title 18, U.S. Code). The reason for which this scheme would tend to make difficult,rather than assist, the search for a solution in terms of double criminality, with respect to the Italian mafia
association, is because it must be characterized by an extremely specific and very peculiar ‘pattern of
racketeering activity’, which requires the commission, in a period of ten years, of at least two of a given listof offences set out in Sec. 1961: this very peculiar and specific ‘element of crime’ does not belong to the
Italian legal framework.
However, it is important to emphasize that the ‘pattern of racketeering activity’ may well contemplatethe crime of extortion committed by ‘wrongful use of fear’, which is crucial for the comparison with the56

134TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Italian legal framework. On the other hand, insofar as the pattern of ‘wrongful use of fear’ of the Italian legal
framework may be comprehended in the ‘pattern of racketeering activity’ of the RICO Statute, the two legal
frameworks may probably cover the same range of criminal conduct and the same range of unlawful profits
and advantages.

III. THE LEGAL AND INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS FOR COMBATINGTHE ECONOMIC DIMENSION OF TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME
A. Money Laundering Activities and the Relevant Italian Legal Provision
Since organized crime means criminal economy, criminal law has to pursue not only the punishment of
the criminals, but also the ‘punishment’ – in quotation marks – of their criminally acquired assets.
It is clear that, with this viewpoint, money laundering assumes an enormous importance. In particular,
money laundering and criminal economy are to be tackled in the knowledge that the members of a criminal
association are inevitably obliged to institute manoeuvres which will conceal the illegal origins of their funds.
Thus, the members themselves of a criminal group are the first necessary launderers for their illegal wealth.
This is why a central importance must be given to the investigation of assets within any investigation
concerning a criminal group, even before investigating the possible existence of external money launderers.
As a matter of fact, mafia people and organized criminals in general, after producing dirty money,
frequently take care of the first steps of the laundering by themselves, within their own criminal activities,
and they apply to external professionals only for further laundering techniques and investments, which
creates a strong connection between the laundering activities and the predicate trafficking activities.
Because of this situation, in many national legal systems, the provision of a particular crime of money
laundering applies only to people who carry on laundering activities for the sake of criminal organizations
but without being part of them. This occurs also in Italy, where laundering and investment of the proceeds ofcrime are penalized by Article 648-bis of the Penal Code, which provides a punishment (imprisonment for 4
to 12 years and a fine) for people who did not take part in the source-crimes, but anyway acted knowingly inorder either to conceal, or substitute, or transfer, or invest their proceeds (the punishment is increased
when the offence is committed in the course of a professional activity).
Thus, we can say that money laundering activities can be either internal or external. Internal laundering
activities are those which are committed by the same people who produced the illegal funds through thesource-crimes and in Italy, these activities are punishable within the framework of the general penal
provisions concerning organized crime (mainly the association crime provisions). On the other hand,external laundering activities are those which are committed by other people, and they are punishable
through the special legal provision of money laundering. It is fitting to emphasize that, according to Italianlaw, any intentional criminal offence may be the predicate offence of a crime of money laundering.
We can say, then, that the new frontier of investigation on organized crime and mafia crime is asystematic strategy of economic investigation, aiming at searching and tracing the proceeds of crime so as toreconstruct every stage of the money laundering activities, both internal and external, being carried out by,
and for the sake of, a criminal group.
We shall see how the final goal of all this could be the seizure and confiscation of the criminal assets of
the investigated criminal organizations, not only on a national scale, but also on an international scale.

B. The Italian Legal Provisions for the Confiscation of Criminal Assets
1. The Regular Criminal Confiscation of Articles 240 and 416-bis of the Penal CodeIn Italy, for every one of the association crimes which are provided by law, the law itself also establishes
the possibility of seizure and confiscation of the respective criminal assets.
More exactly, confiscation of criminal assets (instruments of crime and proceeds of crime) is always
allowed by Article 240 of the Italian Penal Code within criminal proceedings, in case of conviction for any
major crime (particularly criminal associations) and according to the rules of evidence (beyond a reasonable
doubt) which apply to criminal proceedings. The same confiscation is even compulsory, in case of sufficient57

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.73

evidence leading to a sentence, when the penal charge is the mafia-type association, according to Article
416-bis, Paragraph 7, of the Italian Penal Code. In any case, the seizure is always allowed by Article 321 of
the Code of Penal Procedure, in presence of probable cause and in view of a possible future confiscation
which might occur at the end of a trial. In cases of urgency, the Public Prosecutor himself can order aseizure, subject to later confirmation by a judge.
This is the regular criminal confiscation, which may concern a convicted person, with respect to assets tobe directly proven to be criminal assets without any inversion of the burden of proof. It can be compared tothe common-law ‘forfeiture in personam ’.
The limit of the regular criminal confiscation provided in Article 416-bis and Article 240 of the ItalianPenal Code, lies in its effective inability to reach and strike those sections of the criminal economy whichhave been well established for a long period of time, with the resulting inability to reconstruct with sufficientevidence their remote origin. This is due to the fact that, within criminal proceedings, the rules of evidence
are very strict and no inversion of the burden of proof is usually admitted in that field, neither in view of asentence nor in view of a confiscation.
In order to find a solution to this problem, the Italian legislature introduced two different legal remedies
which are conceived in such way as to reach and confiscate the consolidated sections of criminal economy
whose distant background can no longer be duly reconstructed. The first one is a judicial remedy belonging
to substantive criminal law; the second one is an administrative remedy, although judicially guaranteed.
2. The Special Criminal Confiscation of ‘Unjustified Assets’ Introduced in 1994
The first remedy, the judicial one, is a very peculiar mechanism introduced by the Italian legislature with
Article 12-sexies of the Law no. 356 of 1992, as it was modified by the Law no. 501 of 1994 (‘Urgent
provisions in relation to the confiscation of illicit assets’), which provides a further instance for compulsory
criminal confiscation, suitable for striking at sections of consolidated criminal economy, and allowing someinversion of the burden of proof under a number of strict conditions. In fact, the law in question lays down
precise parameters whereby a given source of wealth may be considered as a portion of the consolidated
criminal economy (and thus a source liable to confiscation), even without direct and specific evidence
concerning its origin.
We talk about ‘unjustified assets’ in this case. Normally, unjustified assets cannot be confiscated simply
because of being unjustified, but the law of 1994 introduced an exception, of course under a number ofconditions.
The essential condition for a confiscation of an unjustified asset is that the concerned person has beenfound guilty and was irrevocably sentenced for any one of the crimes specifically indicated by the new legal
provision itself, which indicates a list of crimes particularly familiar to major organized crime phenomena(drug smuggling, mafia association, trafficking in human beings, extortion, money laundering and so on).
Then this is the first condition: the law applies only to persons convicted for one of the specified crimes.
Subject to this primary condition, the legal provision stipulates the compulsory confiscation of theunjustified assets under the following further conditions: 1) that the accused cannot provide a satisfactory
proof of the legal origin of the assets; and 2) that the assets are disproportionate to his or her official income
or to his or her official economic activity.
Under these three conditions, the confiscation is made possible through an inversion of the burden of
proof. However, I must emphasize that all this may apply only to people who have been sentenced forserious organized crime offences, such as mafia-type association, major drug-trafficking, money laundering,kidnapping for purposes of extortion, trafficking in persons and a few others. This is the reason why the
inversion of the burden of proof has been found consistent with the Italian Constitution.
Of course, the confiscability of these unjustified assets causes the same sources of wealth to become
automatically liable to seizure under Article 321 of the Code of Penal Procedure in the course of thepreliminary investigation concerning the specified predicate crimes.

58

134TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

3. The Old Administrative Confiscation Introduced in 1982
The second remedy given by Italian law, in order to reach consolidated criminal assets, is the one
provided by an older anti-mafia statute (Articles 2-bis and 2-ter of the Law no. 575 of 1965, as modified by
the Law no. 646 of 1982), which allows public prosecutors to seize and confiscate criminal assets also
outside a criminal proceedings, and with a looser rule of evidence. This possibility, concerning mafia crimes
and drug crimes, is provided through a non-penal and administrative procedure judicially guaranteed, as it isruled by law and controlled and decided by a judge. In presence of some probable cause of an organizedcrime offence, an asset can be seized as illegal, and then confiscated, within this administrative procedure,
when it appears to be disproportional considering the tax declarations and the legal economic activities of
the affected person, and when the affected person does not prove the legal source of the asset. This old legal
instrument, unlike the previous one, applies without any need for a criminal conviction of the affected person
and then raised some doubts about its consistency with the Italian Constitution. In spite of these doubts, it isa legal remedy still in use, somehow similar to the common-law ‘forfeiture in rem’.

C. The Italian Law on Suspicious Financial Flows and International Confiscation
It must be said that the most effective instrument for the prosecution of criminal assets in Italy is nolonger the administrative remedy introduced in 1982, but the judicial system of criminal confiscation, as it isdefined by Articles 240 and 416-bis (Paragraph 7) of the Penal Code, strenghened by the Law no. 501 of 1994
on ‘unjustified assets’, thanks to the limited inversion of the burden of proof allowed by this new statute and,then, by the current wording of Article 12-sexies of the Law no. 356 of 1992.
As a matter of fact, investigation and prosecution of criminal assets must be allowed to develop beyond
national frontiers, and this is made possible today by the International Convention on Laundering, Search,
Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime, promoted in 1990 by the Council of Europe, which has
been ratified by Italy. The target is the seizure and confiscation of criminal assets on an international scale,since the Convention requires each signatory State, on the request of another signatory State, to seize
assets in view of a request for international confiscation, and also to permit the confiscation of criminal
assets in its own territory. The old-fashioned administrative confiscation introduced in Italy in 1982 would
not be consistent with the parameters established by the Convention for the purposes of ‘international
confiscation’.
It is fitting to emphasize that the Convention of the Council of Europe on money laundering is based on aphilosophy which strongly favours a network of interconnected asset investigations, to be extended on aninternational scale in view of a series of international confiscations, as the most effective investigative tool
against transnational organized crime and its profit-oriented dimension. In other words, a systematic
strategy of interconnected economic investigations, aiming at searching and tracing all the criminal assets(i.e. the proceeds of crime, the instruments of crime, and the proceeds of formally legal economic activities
carried on with criminal means by a criminal group) may allow investigators to reconstruct every stage ofthe money laundering activities, both internal and external, being carried through by, and for the sake of, thecriminal group.
For this reason, the investigating authorities should adopt a mental approach which considers ‘underinvestigation’ not only the persons (for the purposes of some future punishment) but also their related
wealth (for the purposes of some future confiscation), and should get used to giving priority to asset
investigations. Furthermore, asset investigations will have to be specific, concrete and linked together one
to another, so as to be clearly oriented towards gradual progressive targets, with the final goal of securing
evidence on the connection between laundered wealth and predicate offences.
Let’s consider, for example, a criminal group trafficking in narcotics and stolen cars which are hidden in agarage. This garage should be itself the target of a careful economic investigation: the linking economic
investigations should trace the origin of the money which was invested in the garage, through the analysis of
the transfers, the contracts, the licences, the invoices for works in the building, the financial transactions
and banking movements behind all this, as well as through the examination of any person who had
something to do with all this, in order to discover all the economic aspects of the criminal group and all the‘internal’ laundering activities. Further developments of this kind would finally lead to discovering possible‘external’ laundering activities, and even external enterprises dealing professionally with money laundering
for the sake of the criminal group. Moreover, moving further along these ‘follow-the-paper-trail ’ techniques,

59

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.73

the investigation may reach the more sophisticated dimension of international money laundering. The real
challenge of this transnational investigation is how to overcome the last frontier of money laundering, whichis constituted by the use of international electronic transfers of funds.
In this field, a new path is now being experimented with in the countries that gave themselves specificlegislation for the control of suspicious financial operations.
According to Italian Law no. 197 of 1991 (“Urgent provisions aiming at limiting the use of cash intransactions and preventing the use of the financial system for purposes of money laundering”), every bankmust establish its own computerized database and must pass aggregate information on the overall flow offunds, on a monthly basis, to the central banking authority, which is responsible for processing theinformation into usable statistics, so as to detect anomalies and identify regions or towns with suspicious
financial flows. Special attention is paid to the aggregate data concerning electronic transfers of funds, forwhich the concerned towns (domestic and foreign) must be also reported to the central authority.
Let’s now imagine that, in the course of a criminal investigation (for instance on a mafia group active inPalermo), the public prosecutor finds evidence of some financial flows between the mafia group and someindividuals operating in a given foreign town (for instance Tokyo). In this case the prosecutor can ascertainfrom the central agency which financial flows were overall reported in a given time between Palermo andTokyo, so as to identify a number of specific electronic transfers of funds which deserve to be better verified:e.g., he or she might be interested in the transfers operated between the two cities in a given month,particularly relevant to the investigation.
After receiving the proper information about the financial flows that were overall reported in the selected
month between Palermo and Tokyo, the prosecutor can first request more information from the concernedbanks in Palermo about the selected transfers, in order to discover which of them may be actually related tothe investigated criminal group. The next step could be seeking judicial co-operation from the Japanese
authorities.

IV. OTHER LEGAL AND INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS FOR COMBATING ORGANIZED CRIME
A. Italian Legislation on Protection of Witnesses and Collaborators of Justice
1. The Mitigating Circumstances in Favour of the Collaborators of Justice(i) Introduction: the legal position of the collaborative accused
In the Italian legal system, where the exercise of penal action is not discretionary, no immunity canbe granted to an accused, no matter how co-operative he or she may be. However, and particularly inthe proceedings concerning organized crime and mafia groups, some favourable mitigating
circumstances apply to the co-operative accused who gives significant help to the investigators in
the research of decisive evidence against the criminal group.
In a civil law system, an accused is never considered a ‘witness’, even if he or she takes the stand incourt, and his or her statements are never sworn statements. Notwithstanding that, in the Italiansystem the statement given by an accused in court is considered evidence, but it has to be carefully“evaluated together with the other elements of proof which confirm its reliability” (Article 192 of the
Italian Code of Penal Procedure). In other words, the statement of a co-operative defendant accusing
another defendant can be regarded as evidence only if it finds some ‘corroboration’. This requires,anyway, that the statement be given in open court, in such way as to be liable to undergo crossexamination (Article 513 of the Italian Code of Penal Procedure).
The statements given by two different collaborators of justice can corroborate each other, provided
they prove to be autonomous of each other and both reliable. The rules for correct corroboration andfor correct evaluation of the reliability of the collaborators of justice are a major and rather complex
issue of the Italian case law on organized crime.
According to Articles 500 (Paragraph 4) and 210 (Paragraph 5) of the Italian Code of Penal Procedure,
when there is evidence proving that a co-operative defendant was threatened or otherwise suffered
duress or was offered money or other benefits in order to prevent him or her from giving astatement in trial, his or her pre-trial statements shall be admitted as evidence in trial.

60134TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS(ii) The mitigating circumstance for mafia-type associations and mafia crimes
This mitigating circumstance specific to mafia-type criminality is established in Article 8 of Law no.
203 of 1991, that was introduced by the Italian legislature paying special attention to the usual andgeneral attitude of silence and refusal, outside and inside the mafia groups, to possibly co-operatewith investigating authorities. In order to defeat this refusal of co-operation inside the mafia group,
the mitigating circumstance was devised, with the aim of breaking the solidarity among the membersof the criminal organization, in favour of those defendants who agree to co-operate with police andpublic prosecutors, helping them in discovering the criminal groups and in finding the necessary
evidence.
The mitigating circumstance applies in favour of the collaborative accused with respect to bothparticipation in the mafia-type association and perpetration of the specific criminal offences beingcommitted as part of its programme.7 The benefit awarded to the collaborator is a sensible reductionof the punishment: the life imprisonment penalty shall be substituted by imprisonment for 12 to 20
years and the other penalties shall be decreased by one-third to one-half.

(iii) The mitigating circumstances for drug-trafficking associations and their offences
A specific mitigating circumstance is established for the drug-trafficking association crime in
Paragraph 7 of Article 74 of the Law no. 309 of 1990 on Narcotics. The punishments established by
the same article for the participation in the association crime shall be decreased by one-half to twothirds for the accused who “effectively did his or her best to ensure the evidence of the crime or to
deprive the association of decisive resources for the perpetration of its offences”. The wording of
this provision implies that the benefit shall be awarded to the collaborative accused only if his or her
contribution was really suitable for ensuring the evidence or depriving the association of decisive
resources, even if the desired result was missed for reasons not attributable to him or her.
A quite similar mitigating circumstance is established in Paragraph 7 of Article 73 of the same Law
no. 309 of 1990 for the specific drug-trafficking offences being committed as part of the programmeof the association.

(iv) The mitigating circumstance specific to the crime of kidnapping for ransom
The crime of kidnapping for ransom (Article 630 of the Italian Penal Code) was frequently
perpetrated and is still sometimes perpetrated by mafia-type associations in Italy. The crime ispunished with imprisonment for 25 to 30 years. If the hostage is killed the punishment shall be life
imprisonment.
When a co-operative accused behaves in such manner as to determine the hostage to recover his
freedom without ransom the punishment established for simple kidnapping shall apply (Articles 630,
Paragraph 4, and 605 of the Penal Code: imprisonment for six months to eight years).
Apart from this case, for the accused who agrees to co-operate with police and public prosecutors,
helping them effectively in discovering the criminal groups and in finding the necessary evidence,
the life imprisonment penalty shall be substituted by imprisonment for 12 to 20 years and the otherpenalties shall be decreased by one-third to two-thirds (Article 630, Paragraph 5, of the Penal Code).
In both cases, the punishments established by Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 630 can be further
decreased (by not more than one-third) if the co-operative contribution given by the accused was
exceptionally important, also with respect to the duration of the kidnapping and the safety of thehostage (Article 6 of the Law no. 82 of 1991 on Protection of Witnesses and Collaborators of Justice).
2. The Provisions for the Protection of Collaborators of JusticeCo-operative defendants (collaborators of Justice) who were active in organized crime circles may be
granted a protection measure or, in some cases, a protection programme, which may be extended to themembers of their families and may imply change of personal details and assistance in the organization of a
new life. The protection system is supervised by a governmental Commission and is regulated by Law no.
7 When this mitigating circumstance applies, the specific aggravating circumstance established by Article 7 of the Law no. 203
of 1991 (see supra, note 5) is excluded.

61

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.73

82 of 1991 (“Provisions on Protection of Witnesses and Collaborators of Justice”) as modified by Law no. 45
of 2001.8
The basic provision is Article 9 of Law 82, which establishes the possibility of special protection
measures for persons who are in serious danger because of the co-operation given to Justice and because of
the statements given in criminal proceedings concerning organized crime offences provided for in Article 51,
Paragraph 3-bis, of the Code of Penal Procedure.9 According to Paragraph 3 of this article, co-operation andstatements, in order to have protection awarded, must have “a character of subjective reliability”, must be“new and complete” and must appear “of significant importance for the purposes of the trial or for
development of investigations concerning the organizational structure, the equipments, the domestic andinternational relationships, the purposes of the criminal organizations”.
Among the special protection measures Paragraph 4 of Article 13 of Law 82 lists the possibility of abodyguard service, of technical devices of security, and of detention in special protected prisons. If suchprotection measures prove to be insufficient, then a special protection programme shall be defined andoperated according to Paragraph 5 of Article 13 of Law 82. The programme can establish the transfer of theperson (when not in detention) and his family to a protected place, measures of personal and economic
assistance, change of the personal particulars, and assistance for the organization of a new life.
On the other hand, the protected person must undertake to respect a number of rules, such as comply
with security norms and keep co-operating with Justice (Article 12 of Law 82). In case of non-compliance theprotection programme can be revoked.
Article 16-quater of Law 82 provides for a particular deed named “illustrative record of contents of thecollaboration” which constitutes a condition for the protection programme to be awarded. In this record, theperson who manifested the will to be a collaborator of Justice shall immediately (and within six months)
report to the Office of the Prosecutor the whole information in his or her possession that is useful toreconstruct the facts and circumstances relevant to the proceedings, to identify and arrest the authors of theoffences and to identify, seize and confiscate their criminal assets and instruments. The person shall also
testify on record that he or she is not in possession of further significant information which might berelevant to Justice. If this assertion proves to be untruthful, the protection programme shall be revoked. As arule, any new statement given by the person to the prosecutor or the police after the six-month term cannot
be used in trial.
3. The Provisions for the Protection of Witnesses
A wider protection is provided for in Articles 16-bis and 16-ter of Law 82 in favour of the so-called“witnesses of Justice”, i.e. persons (unrelated to organized crime circles) who simply have a position of
victims and/or witnesses and agree to testify against a criminal organization even when this behaviour
exposes them to grave dangers. The Italian legislature recognized that these persons, and their families,
deserve not only proper protection (through the aforesaid special measures and protection programmes
provided for by Articles 9 and 13 of Law 82), but also a complete reparation of the suffered damages.
The only requirement for a statement given by a witness of Justice, in order to have the protection
programme awarded, is its ‘reliability’ (besides, of course, a condition of grave danger as a consequence ofthe statement). It is not required that the information given be new or complete or of special importance forthe proceedings. Furthermore, the statement may concern also crimes that are not included among the ones
indicated in Article 51, Paragraph 3-bis, of the Code of Penal Procedure as typical organized crime offences.
Of course, there is no need for an “illustrative record of contents of the collaboration” is needed for thewitnesses of Justice.

8 Confidential informants of the police have no special protection, other than the strict confidentiality of any information about

them. On the other hand, the information provided by them can never be used in court (Article 203 of the Italian Code of Penal
Procedure).
9 See supra, section II, paragraphs B.2, B.3 and C.1.

62

134TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Moreover, the economic benefits in favour of the witnesses of Justice and their families are rather
substantial (and anyway more favourable than the ones established for collaborators of Justice), since theymust assure “a personal and familiar standard of living not lower than the one enjoyed before the start of the
programme, until they recover the possibility to enjoy their own income”, then “even after the end of theprotection programme” (Article 16-ter, Paragraph 1.b, of Law 82).
Apart from the special provisions contained in Law 82, it is fitting to remember that Article 500(Paragraph 4) of the Italian Code of Penal Procedure is somehow related to the issue of protection of
witnesses, since it establishes that, when there is evidence proving that a witness was threatened orotherwise suffered duress or was offered money or other benefits in order to prevent him or her fromtestifying, his or her pre-trial statements shall be admitted as evidence in trial.

B. Legal Provisions on Some Investigative Tools Specific to Organized Crime
1. Electronic Surveillance
Telephone tapping and interception of on-site conversations are widely used in Italy as an investigative
tool in the field of organized crime.
The general regulation of electronic surveillance, as it is dictated in the Code of Penal Procedure (Article
266 et seq.) is very strict. However, in the investigations concerning organized crime, the regulation is madelooser by a particular legal provision introduced in 1991 which allows electronic surveillance “whenever theinterception is necessary in order to carry on investigations related to an organized-crime offence [....] forwhich sufficient indicia exist” (Article 13 of the Law no. 203 of 1991).
In any case, a motivated warrant of electronic surveillance has to be issued by a judge, at the request of
the public prosecutor. The warrant can be granted for a maximum term of forty days, but may be extended
by the judge. In case of urgency, the warrant, or the extension, may be provisionally issued by the publicprosecutor himself, but has to be presented to the judge within 24 hours with a request of validation.
2. Undercover Operations
Undercover operations, performed by undercover police officers, have been regulated in Italy only in thelast fifteen years.
Undercover agents are allowed to make simulated purchases of drugs in order to acquire evidence
concerning drug smuggling. However, high level police commanders have to decide or authorize these
operations. Furthermore, the public prosecutor must be informed in detail of any undercover operation, andmay issue a motivated order to postpone the seizure of the purchased drug until the conclusion of theinvestigation, if so requested by the police (Article 97 of the Law no. 309 of 1990 on Narcotics).
An identical regulation has been introduced for undercover operations concerning simulated acts ofmoney laundering and simulated purchases of weapons (Article 12-quater of the Law 356 of 1992).
3. Task Force Units
Task force ‘anti-mafia’ units of prosecutors (Direzioni distrettuali antimafia) were created in 1992 and are
active for investigations and prosecutions concerning organized crime in the 27 District prosecuting offices of
the country. They are co-ordinated by a central co-ordinating unit for anti-mafia prosecutions (‘Direzione
nazionale antimafia’) (Article 51, par. 3-bis, and Article 371-bis of the Italian Code of Penal Procedure).
Task force units exist – for specific organized-crime investigations – in the different police forces (Polizia
di Stato, Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza), so as to specialize in this or that field of investigations: drug
smuggling, extortions, money laundering, etc., and they are also co-ordinated by central co-ordinating units.
A new central inter-force police unit (the Direzione investigativa antimafia) was also created fifteen years
ago in order to enhance the fight against mafia organizations (Law no. 410 of 1991).

63

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.73

APPENDIX AARTICLE 416-BIS OF THE ITALIAN PENAL CODE(MAFIA-TYPE UNLAWFUL ASSOCIATION)
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

7.

8.

64

Any person participating in a Mafia-type unlawful association including three or more persons shall be
liable to imprisonment for 5 to 10 years.
Those persons promoting, directing or organizing the said association shall be liable, for this soleoffence, to imprisonment for 7 to 12 years.
Mafia-type unlawful association is said to exist when the participants take advantage of theintimidating power of the association and of the resulting conditions of submission and silence tocommit criminal offences, to manage or in any way control, either directly or indirectly, economic
activities, concessions, authorizations, public contracts and services, or to obtain unlawful profits oradvantages for themselves or for any other persons, or with a view to prevent or limit the freedom tovote, or to get votes for themselves or for other persons on the occasion of an election.
Should the association be of the armed type, the punishment shall be imprisonment for 7 to 15 years
pursuant to paragraph 1 and imprisonment for 10 to 24 years pursuant to paragraph 2.
An association is said to be of the armed type when the participants have firearms or explosives attheir disposal, even if hidden or deposited elsewhere, to achieve the objectives of the said association.
If the economic activities whose control the participants in the said association aim at achieving ormaintaining are funded, totally or partially, by the price, the products or the proceeds of criminal
offences, the punishments referred in the above paragraphs shall be increased by one-third to one-half.
The offender shall always be liable to confiscation of the things that were used or meant to be used tocommit the offence and of the things that represent the price, the product or the proceeds of suchoffence or the use thereof.
The provisions of this article shall also apply to the Camorra and to any other associations, whatever
their local titles, seeking to achieve objectives that correspond to those of Mafia-type unlawful
association by taking advantage of the intimidating power of the association.