THE ROCCHI CASE
The investigation conducted by the Public Prosecutor of Milan into alleged interference with refereeing appointments for certain matches during the 2024–2025 season represents a case of particular interest from the perspective of the relationship between ordinary criminal justice and the sports legal order.
The request for dismissal submitted by the Public Prosecutor in relation to Gianluca Rocchi, the former referee appointments officer for Serie A and Serie B, as well as in relation to the corporate administrative liability of FC Inter Milan (Inter) provides an opportunity to examine the delicate boundary between mere pressure or interaction and conduct capable of constituting a criminal offence aimed at affecting the integrity and regularity of sports competitions.
According to the information released by the Public Prosecutor, the investigation concerned the alleged offence of conspiracy to commit sporting fraud pursuant to Article 1 of Law No. 401/1989.
This criminal provision punishes any person who, by any fraudulent means, carries out acts intended to secure for someone a result different from that which would arise from the proper and fair conduct of a sports competition.
In the present case, the investigative hypothesis concerned the possibility that refereeing appointments had been influenced by requests originating from within the Inter organisation, with the alleged involvement of the referee appointments officer.
The matches subject to investigative scrutiny were four. The investigative activities reportedly included telephone interceptions, analysis of contacts between the individuals involved and, in certain cases, surveillance activities. At the conclusion of the inquiries, however, the Public Prosecutor considered that the evidence collected was insufficient to support the existence of a fraudulent act amounting to a criminally relevant offence.
The central legal assessment carried out by the investigators concerns the distinction between interference and sporting fraud. The former may consist of pressure, requests, expressions of preference or objections concerning refereeing decisions; such conduct may be incompatible with the principles of autonomy and independence governing the refereeing function and may, therefore, be relevant within the framework of sports justice. However, such conduct does not automatically constitute the offence of sporting fraud.
For the criminal offence to be established, it is necessary to demonstrate the existence of fraudulent conduct that is concretely capable of affecting the regularity of a sporting event. It is not sufficient to prove the existence of personal relationships, communications or attempts at influence that lack actual capacity to alter the outcome or integrity of the competition. Criminal case law, including precedents concerning the manipulation of sporting events, has progressively clarified that criminal liability requires a higher threshold of harm and evidentiary certainty than a mere breach of sporting ethical principles.
The Public Prosecutor, therefore, concluded that the evidence gathered could indicate individual episodes of interaction or interference but did not demonstrate the existence of an organised system aimed at systematically influencing refereeing appointments. This distinction is fundamental: the absence of evidence of a fraudulent scheme excludes criminal liability, whilst leaving open the possibility that the same facts may be assessed under the separate rules of the sports legal order.
The transmission of the case file to the Federal Prosecutor’s Office of the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) represents an autonomous procedural step distinct from the criminal proceedings.
The sports legal system has its own investigative mechanisms and disciplinary offences, which do not necessarily coincide with those provided for under the criminal law. In particular, the FIGC Sports Justice Code protects the principles of sporting loyalty, fairness and integrity through provisions capable of sanctioning conduct which, although not sufficiently serious to constitute a criminal offence, may nevertheless be considered incompatible with the fundamental values of football governance.
It is also necessary to distinguish between individual liability and corporate liability. The position of Inter was examined in the light of Legislative Decree No. 231/2001, concerning the administrative liability of companies for certain offences committed in the interest or for the benefit of the organisation by senior executives or individuals subject to their direction and supervision. The request for dismissal concerning the club indicates that, at the current stage of proceedings, insufficient evidence was found to support a claim of corporate liability.
Under the Italian legal system, a request for dismissal submitted by the Public Prosecutor does not, per se, bring criminal proceedings to a definitive end. The decision lies with the Judge for Preliminary Investigations (Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari – GIP), who may grant the request, order further investigative measures or, where the legal requirements are met, require the continuation of the criminal proceedings. The current procedural stage must, therefore, be assessed in accordance with the constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence, which prevents the attribution of definitive responsibility in the absence of a final judicial decision.
From a sporting perspective, however, the matter presents separate and autonomous issues. The federal sports authorities will have to assess whether any requests, pressures or communications concerning refereeing appointments may constitute disciplinary violations, regardless of the absence of a criminal offence. The separation between ordinary justice and sports justice is a well-established principle within the Italian legal framework: failure to meet the evidentiary threshold required for a criminal conviction does not necessarily prevent a different assessment under sports regulations.
The Rocchi case, therefore, highlights a central issue in contemporary sports justice: the need to safeguard the independence and integrity of sporting competitions without transforming every form of dialogue, pressure or dissatisfaction into an automatically sanctionable offence. The final assessment must necessarily be based upon concrete evidence, distinguishing between conduct that may be subject to sporting criticism and conduct which is genuinely capable of compromising the integrity and regularity of sports competitions.
Pending the decision of the GIP and any further developments before the sporting judicial bodies, the current legal framework allows only one conclusion, namely, that the criminal investigation did not identify sufficient evidence to support the allegation of sporting fraud, whilst the autonomous assessment by the sports legal order, which requires a different standard of proof regarding the facts under examination, remains open.
We act in sporting fraud cases in Italy and further information is available from the Head of our Italian Law Practice, Avv. Sara Botti, by emailing her at botti@valloni.ch.