JUVENTUS CASE PLEA BARGAINS ACCEPTED
The recent decision of the Rome Tribunal to accept the plea bargain requests submitted by several former Juventus Football Club executives, including the former chairman, Andrea Agnelli, and the former vice-chairman, Pavel Nedved, has once again highlighted the interplay between criminal justice and sports justice, as well as the role of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in the Italian legal system.
Plea bargaining, under Article 444 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, is a distinctive feature of the Italian criminal justice system.
It is an agreement between the prosecution and the defence, which, subject to judicial approval, allows a defendant to conclude criminal proceedings with a reduced sentence, without any formal admission of guilt.
In this case, the Rome Tribunal approved, on 22 September 20225, a plea bargain of one year and eight months for Agnelli and one year and two months for Nedved, both suspended sentences. Former CEO, Maurizio Arrivabene, in comparison, had the criminal proceedings against him dismissed.
This form of negotiated settlement has two key effects:
- it avoids the uncertainty and duration of a complex trial, whilst guaranteeing a significant reduction of the sentence;
- it does not imply a definitive acknowledgment of guilt, although it still produces legal consequences, for example, registration in the criminal records.
The Juventus case focused on allegations of false accounting and financial misrepresentation, particularly in connection with player transfers and salary agreements during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prosecutors argued that Juventus overstated certain transactions and deferred the recognition of liabilities, with significant implications for financial markets, given that the club is listed on the Milan Stock Exchange.
The case, therefore, represents a paradigmatic intersection of white-collar criminal law, financial market regulation, and the sports regulatory framework, which had previously imposed heavy sanctions on the club, including a one-year ban from European competitions.
The Juventus case also underlines the importance of strong corporate governance and effective compliance mechanisms. Publicly listed companies – regardless of whether they operate in sport, industry, or services – must ensure transparency in financial reporting, robust internal controls, independent audit procedures, and a corporate culture designed to reduce opportunistic behaviour.
Beyond the media spotlight generated by football, the Juventus case is a significant precedent for understanding how criminal economic law interacts with sports regulations and financial market oversight.
From a Swiss legal perspective, the Juventus case offers some relevant comparative insights. The closest analogue to Italian plea bargaining in Switzerland is the Summary Penalty Order Procedure under the Federal Criminal Procedure (article 352 ff. CrimPC), which enables certain cases to be resolved through an admission of guilt by the accused. However, the Swiss legal framework provides different margins of discretion and does not grant the same automatic reduction of sentence as the Italian system, but the discretion of the Swiss Prosecutor is high.
For companies – in Italy, Switzerland, and elsewhere – the Juventus case will serve as a reminder of the critical importance of transparency and regulatory compliance.
Prevention, through effective organisational models and responsible governance, remains the most effective safeguard against the risks of criminal proceedings and sanctions, whether civil, financial, or sporting.
We act in sports-related criminal proceedings 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.