De facto power and dismissal for criminal infiltration: the case explained

1. The facts

   According to reports from Milano Post and Guida al Lavoro de Il Sole 24 Ore, the case involves a service company operating in the Ionian region which, following an anti-mafia interdiction issued by the Prefect of Taranto, proceeded with the disciplinary dismissal of an employee.

   The employee, despite formally holding a simple clerical position, was identified by administrative authorities as the true dominus of corporate operations, capable of influencing hiring and managerial choices through links with local crime. Following the disciplinary notice, the case reached the Supreme Court after both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal of Lecce had confirmed the lawfulness of the dismissal. The final ruling established that the risk of business paralysis resulting from the interdiction justifies the breach of the fiduciary bond.

2. 

   The rules in play

   The legal framework is based on three pillars. Article 2119 of the Civil Code governs just cause, i.e., that very serious breach or extra-occupational behavior that does not allow the continuation, even temporary, of the employment relationship.

   Articles 84 and 91 of Legislative Decree 159/2011 (Anti-Mafia Code) regulate the interdiction notice, the issuance of which prevents the company from contracting with the Public Administration. Finally, Article 7 of Law 300/1970 mandates compliance with the disciplinary procedure, guaranteeing the worker the right of defense before the expulsion sanction is imposed.

3. What the jurisprudence says

   High court jurisprudence has clarified that, regarding anti-mafia interdictions, there is no automatic link between the Prefect's measure and dismissal. However, judges have consolidated the view that the de facto power exercised by the employee prevails over formal contractual classification.

   If it is proven that the presence of an individual exposes the business to the risk of market exclusion, the dismissal is considered a legitimate self-cleaning measure. The judges also specified that the employer does not need to wait for a final criminal conviction, as the loss of trust necessary for the entity's economic survival is sufficient.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   First, the importance of monitoring internal decision-making flows to identify hierarchical anomalies before authorities intervene. Second, the need to conduct a rigorous internal investigation before dismissal to gather evidence independent of the Prefect's interdiction.

   Third, caution in invoking just cause: it is essential to demonstrate concrete damage to reputation and business operations. Fourth, the necessary coordination between labor lawyers and administrative lawyers to manage the case on multiple judicial fronts simultaneously.

References: Articolo 2119 Codice CivileD.Lgs. 159/2011, Articoli 84 e 91Legge 300/1970, Articolo 7

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 14 May 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction