Gold bars: to plea-bargain a tax fraud you pay the State first; to plea-bargain after collecting the savings of 2,400 people you give nothing back

1 October 2026, 18:17

Since 2019 Global Group Consulting has been collecting the savings of thousands of people, promising gold bars and a return of 4 per cent a month: 48 per cent a year. According to the prosecution, only a small share ended up in gold; the rest paid the returns of those who had come in earlier. Four per cent a month on a metal that sits still in a safe: the only thing really growing was the queue of new clients. It is called a Ponzi scheme. According to the Milan Public Prosecutor's Office, more than €89 million passed through the company. The two alleged masterminds, Samuel Gatto and Stefania Conti Gallenti, have been untraceable since the start of the investigation.

In February five defendants plea-bargained, that is, agreed a reduced sentence with the prosecution, of between 2 years 11 months and 3 years 10 months, for criminal association and unauthorised financial activity. Now the Court of Cassation, by rejecting the appeal of the Milan Prosecutor General's Office, has made those sentences final. The lawyers for hundreds of savers: “No compensation will come out of this first trial”.

Article 444 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure says so: “If a civil party has joined the proceedings, the judge does not rule on its claim”. In plain terms: whoever plea-bargains settles the account with the State, not with those who lost the money. To get it back, around 2,400 savers must wait for the trial of the two masterminds, who meanwhile cannot be found.

Yet the same law, when the one losing money is the State, reasons quite differently. For tax fraud, such as a tax return built on false invoices, Article 13-bis of Legislative Decree 74 of 2000 allows a plea bargain only after the entire debt to the tax authorities has been paid, penalties and interest included. For corruption and embezzlement, the same Article 444 first requires the “full restitution of the price or the profit of the offence”. For those who collect the savings of thousands of people without authorisation, no condition at all.

It is as if someone who runs out of a restaurant without paying could agree the sentence with the judge, while the owner had to sue him separately for the bill. If, however, the restaurant is the barracks canteen, the bill is settled before any agreement.

The same holds for a business defrauded by a customer or a supplier: if the fraudster plea-bargains, the business still has to bring a civil action to see its money again.

So the question goes to those who write the laws: why, to plea-bargain a tax evaded with false invoices, must it be paid first, while whoever collected the savings of 2,400 people can plea-bargain without giving back a single euro?

When the money lost is its own, the State gets paid before it shakes hands.

This article was prompted by a news item published in Milano Finanza on 30 September 2026.