27 / 36
IMPACT OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS IN CORRUPTION CASES AFFECTING EU FINANCIAL INTERESTS |
PAG.27
due control over the scores and management of the Italian football league. The scandal led to the resi-
gnation of several managers, and most executives of both the Serie A League and clubs, along with some
referees, were found guilty of their illicit maneuvers by the Special Sports Court. Most defendants were
convicted by first and second instance courts but their cases became statute barred later on, including
those of two of the most famous actors of the scandal, Luciano Moggi and Antonio Giraudo
51
. Second, the
match-fixing case of 2011 when a similar situation occurred, with trials before the Sports Court already
having been decided but with only few of them leading to criminal proceedings: most of them started
in mid-2016 and their SOL terms will probably expire in 2018. Furthermore, in the doping case of 2002,
Doctor Riccardo Agricola was convicted by the first instance court in 2002 but his case became statute
barred in March 2007.
In the health sector two of the biggest scandals were plagued by limitation periods: the “killer valves”
case concerned a doctor who was accused of bribery to acquire faulty heart valves which were then
implanted into 34 patients (two of them died). The case against the doctor became statute barred. The
same happened in the proceedings concerning the so-called “Horror Clinic”, where Doctor Pierpaolo
Brega Massone was sentenced to life for conducting systemic useless surgeries on elderly patients that
caused several deaths. These surgeries were not necessary from a medical perspective and they were
performed to commit fraud against the National Health Service, yet the fraud charges became statute
barred.
Some major environmental disasters ended or will soon end with no consequences for their perpetra-
tors because of the expiry of the corresponding limitation periods. The most famous case is that of the
Eternit company regarding the use of asbestos in a factory that caused an environmental disaster and
the severe illness of hundreds of employees and citizens due to the lack of precautionary safety measu-
res. The chairman and the CEO were convicted by the first and second instance courts but their offences
were held statute barred by Cassazione at the third instance court level. Compensation to victims was
also annulled.
Two cases represent a paradox:
1) Giulio Cesare Morrone murdered his wife in 1990 and pleaded guilty in 2012 (twenty-two years after
the fact). The law in the 1990s included aggravating and extenuating circumstances in the calculation of
the SOL. The prosecutor asked for thirty years’ imprisonment (sixteen years of basic crime plus aggra-
vating circumstances). The first and second instance courts did not acknowledge the aggravating circu-
mstances, and as a result the crime became statute barred while the murderer was acquitted despite
his confession.
2) On June 29, 2009, thirty-three people died in a railway crash in Viareggio. Investigations on the people
responsible for the disaster started immediately afterwards: after four years, thirty-three people were indi-
cted for several crimes (culpable fire, culpable murder). The first instance case is still pending and culpable
fire and culpable injury charges are about to become statute barred. Despite the fact that this crime was
detected early, there is no real chance for the victims to see perpetrators being judged by the court.
51
Fun fact: one of the few people who gave up his right to enforce SOL terms, the referee Massimo De Santis, was one of
the few people who was convicted with a final criminal decision.