On this occasion, however:
> In all previous cases involving other international groups, once a settlement was reached and payment made, prosecutors closed related criminal investigations, either through plea deals or by dropping the cases.
> This time, however, Milan prosecutors did not share the tax authority's approach and decided to press ahead with their probe, leading to a request that the suspects be sent to trial.
It’s crazy that executives can jump around the law and not face any criminal charges, then the company picks up the bill (although I’m not ignorant thinking this isn’t usual)
I’m just curious to learn more about how often this is the case and you usually what happens with people afterward
- we want 1.4B, but it will take 10 years in courts
- best I can do is 800M (or even lower)
- ok, we'll take it
My mother's husband owed 70k+ EUR in taxes and at some point the judge proposed and he agreed to 2800 euros.
The trick is to not have a bank account in your name only, you have it joint with a child/spouse and they can't take your money. Nor they can take your house, if you only have one.
Eventually under those situations the judges try to take anything rather than nothing.
I'm not defending this situation, just saying it's widespread and the fact that every two governments come one that does a "condono", which is essentially "let's agree with tax evaders for some 50% of the tax they owe so they are happy and we see something" doesn't help.
Harsher punishment should be warranted, but you can't go to prison for tax evasion.
Yes they can take 100% of your part of that bank account which amounts at total / # of owners.
Justice is independent in most EU countries.
I am occasionally called upon by the local consulate to perform my civic duty and vote.
Just this week I sent them back my ballot, now marked, for this referendum in a sealed envelope.
This referendum required me to dig more deeply than usual into Italian politics before I could decide which way I wanted to vote.
Is this some indirect effect of that?
Namely, it also changes the self-regulating body (the CSM, Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura) of the judiciary so that the government and parliament have a bit more authority and the judiciary have a bit less: the organ is split in two, its judiciary members are no longer elected but picked randomly while a part is decided by the political side, and there's an even higher special tribunal.
Proponents say this is necessary, opponents say this is leading towards stronger power of the political majority over the judiciary.
Now, roughly one third of CSM members is nominated by the Parliament and the other one is elected by judges, according to the "correnti" (a sort of parties)
Ask any Romanian and they'll tell you they're not. Ask them about the Mario Iorgulescu case [1], with the Italian justice system refusing to extradite him here to Romania only because his (wealthy) dad paid the right people off. And Iorgulescu is not the only such case.
[1] https://www.romaniajournal.ro/society-people/law-crime/mario...
Italian here. It's not like that: the referendum is about definitely enforcing the career separation about public persecutor and judges. Actually they are under the same authority and the member of this authority are elected according to a sort of political parties (unique case in the whole EU) and this creates some distortions in career growths and nominations. The new schema will create two different authorities and the members will be selected according to a ballot.
A similar proposal was made by the left wing parties few years ago, when they were at the government