Italian investigators searched premises on 24 September in a suspected corruption case involving a €3.67 million contract for works at a former landfill in Benevento. The project at Piano Borea was financed by the European Regional Development Fund, bringing the alleged conduct within the work of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
EPPO’s Naples office directed the operation, which was carried out by the investigative unit of the Carabinieri’s provincial command in Benevento. Prosecutors suspect that public officials, experts and company representatives participated in arrangements affecting both the award of the contract and the way it was managed once work was under way.
The contract concerned permanent safety works at the former landfill. EPPO alleges that company representatives offered improper benefits to officials and other people involved in the project in exchange for favourable treatment. According to the announcement, the suspected benefits included cash payments and construction work at properties connected to some of the suspects or their relatives.
That account describes an alleged exchange of advantages, rather than simply an irregularity in project paperwork. The prosecution’s task is to establish whether benefits were provided, who received or arranged them and whether they were linked to decisions about the public contract. The searches are part of gathering evidence for those questions. They do not establish that the alleged exchange occurred.
The inquiry arose from information obtained during a separate investigation by the Benevento public prosecutor’s office. Evidence from that work led to the opening of an EPPO case involving the EU’s financial interests. The two prosecution offices coordinated the searches, while Benevento prosecutors continued a parallel investigation concerning contracts financed with national and regional funds.
This division reflects the funding involved in the contracts under examination. It should not be read as a statement that one office is investigating all public procurement in the area or that every project connected to the suspects was financed by the EU. The September announcement identifies one EU-funded landfill contract and a separate national investigation covering other public money.
The €3.67 million figure is the value of the contract. EPPO did not announce that this entire amount had been stolen, paid in bribes or lost to the public budget. Contract value, suspected illicit benefits and any eventual financial damage are separate measures. The announcement does not provide a total for the alleged cash payments or a valuation of the property work.
The alleged use of construction services as a benefit is significant to the way the case is described. A suspected payment need not appear only as a direct cash transfer to the person making a public decision. Work on a property can also have financial value. In this case, prosecutors say they are examining properties connected with suspects or relatives, but they have not published the addresses or identified the individual arrangements.
The account does not establish whether the landfill works were completed, whether their technical quality was satisfactory or whether any environmental harm resulted. Those would require separate evidence. The subject of the announced inquiry is suspected corruption in the award and execution of the contract. It would be premature to infer a defective remediation project solely from the existence of that inquiry.
Public procurement decisions can affect a contractor at several stages. Selection determines who wins the work; contract management affects how delivery is assessed and payments are handled. EPPO expressly refers to both award and execution. That makes the timeline of the alleged benefits relevant: the investigation must connect the conduct attributed to each suspect with the decisions prosecutors say were influenced.
The case also involves people with different roles. An official, a technical expert and a company representative do not exercise the same powers or carry the same responsibilities. The collective description in the press release does not establish that everyone performed the same act. Individual responsibility will depend on evidence about each person’s conduct and knowledge, including any explanation given by the defence.
No conviction or final recovery figure was announced. The public statement also does not provide a complete list of suspects, the material seized during the searches or a timetable for court proceedings. The confirmed development is a coordinated search operation in an EPPO corruption investigation concerning an EU-funded public works contract. The allegation of cash and property-related benefits remains to be tested through the criminal process, and all those concerned are presumed innocent.
Sources:
