Law No. 75 of April 21, 2026, introduces a comprehensive reform of the agri-food penalty system, addressing both criminal and administrative matters. The main pillars of the reform are: the new Chapter II-bis of the Criminal Code, which elevates agri-food assets to an independent legal asset; the rewriting of the crimes of food fraud and trade with false markings; the aggravating circumstance of agro-piracy for organized conduct; the introduction of the "official block" as a proportionate administrative precautionary measure; and a series of new administrative offenses in the milk sounding, traceability, and fishing sectors.

Context and structure of the reform

Approved on April 15, 2026, and published in the Official Journal No. 110 of May 14, 2026, the Law containing "Sanctioning Provisions for the Protection of Italian Food Products" responds to the need to rationalize the current regulatory framework by both redefining and strengthening criminal offenses and introducing new administrative tools for less serious violations, with a view to gradual and proportionate sanctions.

News in the criminal field

The new Chapter II-bis of the Criminal Code

The reform integrates Title VIII of Book II of the Criminal Code, extending the scope to "crimes against the public economy, industry, commerce, and agri-food heritage" and recognizing the authenticity and quality of food as an independent legal asset. The crime of food fraud (Article 517-sexies of the Criminal Code) punishes anyone who, in the exercise of economic activity, circulates products that are non-genuine or differ in origin, provenance, quality, or quantity from those declared, including through digital channels: imprisonment from two months to one year and a fine of €1,000 to €4,000. Trading with false signs (Article 517-septies of the Criminal Code) punishes the use of false indications regarding product characteristics, with a penalty of up to 18 months' imprisonment and a fine of up to €20,000, extending investigative powers to include wiretapping. In both cases, for particularly serious offenses or in the event of a repeat offense, the judge may order the temporary closure of the business (from 5 days to 3 months). Counterfeiting of PDO and PGI products (Article 517-quater of the Criminal Code) has been tightened (prison sentences ranging from 1 to 4 years) and protection has been extended to customs procedures. Mandatory confiscation and confiscation of equivalent value (Article 518 of the Criminal Code) applies to all offenses under Chapter II-bis.

Agropiracy, definitive closure and Legislative Decree no. 231/2001

Article 517-octies of the Criminal Code introduces the special aggravating circumstance of agro-piracy, applicable when fraud is committed through organized structures. However, this classification as an aggravating circumstance—rather than a separate crime—exposes the risk that the balancing act pursuant to Article 69 of the Criminal Code will neutralize its effect in the presence of mitigating circumstances. Permanent closure of the facility is provided as an additional sanction for the most serious cases, but only in the presence of both seriousness of the offense and specific recidivism. The liability of entities pursuant to Legislative Decree no. 231/2001 has been extended only to aggravated forms of agro-piracy (Article 517-octies, paragraph 4), requiring companies in the supply chain to adopt dynamic organizational monitoring models.

Evidentiary instruments and joint destination of confiscated assets

On the procedural level, the reform strengthens evidence gathering: Article 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits urgent sampling without prior notification to the defense in the event of a risk of tampering; the concept of non-repeatable acts is extended to perishable samples (Article 223 of the implementing provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure); the evidentiary hearing (Article 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) is permitted for perishable products. Finally, the new Article 86-ter of the implementing provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows seized or confiscated products to be donated to charitable organizations, provided they are fit for consumption and after downgrading or removing counterfeit trademarks.

What's new in the administrative field

The official block

Article 18-bis of Law no. 689/1981 bridges the gap with EU Regulation no. 2017/625 by introducing the "official freeze": a precautionary measure that can be activated in the event of violations without immediate risk to health. The supervisory body binds the product, handing it over to the operator, who has 10 days to regularize their documentation. If successful, the freeze is lifted without resulting in seizure, in compliance with the principle of proportionality.

Milk sounding, traceability and fishing

The new Article 7-bis of Legislative Decree no. 231/2017 prohibits the use of evocative dairy product names for plant-based foods (milk-sounding), even when accompanied by specifications such as "plant-based." Fines range from €4,000 to €32,000, or up to 3% of turnover (maximum €100,000) for large companies, and reduced payments are excluded. The amendment to Article 2 of Legislative Decree no. 190/2006 increases fines for violations of traceability requirements (from €6,000 to €48,000, or 3% of turnover up to €150,000), but provides a 15-day deadline to rectify purely formal irregularities. Legislative Decree no. Law 4/2012 was finally reformed in the fisheries sector, introducing penalties for obstructing inspection activities (Article 13-quater) and for violations of labeling and traceability of fish products (Article 13-sexies), with fines ranging from €1,000 to €6,000 and avoidable confiscation in the event of proven traceability.

Conclusions

The law under consideration introduces a comprehensive and integrated system of prevention, repression, and compliance, which will result in increased organizational burdens for companies, particularly with regard to internal control systems, organizational models pursuant to Legislative Decree 231/2001, and procedures for communicating and managing product information. Despite some potential implementation issues—primarily the risk of weakening the effectiveness of the aggravating circumstance of agricultural piracy due to the balancing provided for by Article 69 of the Criminal Code—the reform appears overall aimed at filling regulatory gaps that have long been highlighted as requiring intervention.

Regulatory references

• Law 21 April 2026, n. 75 (Official Journal n. 110 of 14 May 2026)

• Articles 517-quater, 517-sexies, 517-septies, 517-octies, 518 cp.

• Legislative Decree no. 231/2001 – Administrative liability of entities

• Articles 246, 392 cpp – Article 223 dis. att. cpp – Art. 86-ter dis. att. cpp.

• L. n. 689/1981, art. 18-bis – Legislative Decree no. 231/2017, articles. 7-bis and 27

• Legislative Decree no. 190/2006, art. 2 – Legislative Decree no. 4/2012

Content edited by Avv. Giorgio Rusconi and Lawyer. Laura Carrara