Campari, the Italian drinks group known around the world for its aperitifs, is facing renewed scrutiny after prosecutors in Monza requested that its chairman, Luca Garavoglia, stand trial in a tax investigation involving an alleged €1.29 billion tax shortfall. The request also concerns Giovanni Berto, the legal representative of Lagfin, the Luxembourg-based holding company through which the Garavoglia family controls Campari.
The development was reported on 8 October 2026. It marks an important stage in the investigation, but it is not a conviction, and it does not mean a trial has already begun. A judge must first decide whether the case should proceed to trial or whether a different procedural outcome is appropriate. Garavoglia and Berto deny wrongdoing, while Lagfin says it is not involved in the current proceedings against the chairman and points to a separate procedural decision concerning the holding company.
The figures involved can easily become confusing. Investigators allege that capital gains worth approximately €5.3 billion were not properly declared in connection with a corporate restructuring. The alleged tax shortfall is around €1.29 billion. A separate tax settlement reached by Lagfin with Italy’s Revenue Agency was worth approximately €405 million, payable over four years. These are three different figures describing different aspects of the same broader dispute; they should not be treated as interchangeable.

What prosecutors allege

The investigation centres on a corporate restructuring dating back to 2018. At the time, Alicros, the Italian company that directly controlled Campari, was merged with Lagfin, a Luxembourg-based holding company that already sat within the group’s ownership structure. The transaction brought the controlling stake in Campari into a structure based in Luxembourg.
According to the prosecution’s account, the restructuring triggered tax obligations connected to the transfer of assets and latent capital gains out of Italy. Investigators believe that capital gains of approximately €5.3 billion arising between 2018 and 2020 were not declared as required, resulting in an alleged failure to pay around €1.29 billion in exit tax.
The alleged offence reported in connection with the case is fraudulent tax declaration. The legal question is not simply whether a company used a Luxembourg holding structure. International corporate structures can be lawful. The issue for the courts is whether this particular transaction created taxable gains in Italy, whether those gains were declared correctly, and whether the legal elements of the alleged offence can be established against the individuals concerned.
These remain allegations. The prosecution’s interpretation has not been confirmed by a final criminal judgment, and the requested trial must not be described as proof of guilt.

What is an exit tax?

An exit tax may apply when a company transfers its tax residence from one country to another. Depending on the circumstances and the relevant rules, the move can trigger taxation of latent capital gains: increases in the value of assets that accrued while the company was connected to the country it is leaving.
The underlying principle is that a company should not necessarily be able to move its tax residence abroad and thereby remove from the domestic tax system gains that accumulated while it was subject to that system. The actual tax treatment, however, depends on the transaction’s legal structure, the assets involved, the applicable legislation and the company’s specific circumstances.
In the Campari case, prosecutors argue that the 2018 restructuring gave rise to taxable gains for which the relevant exit tax was not properly paid. The defence disputes the allegations. If the case goes to trial, the court will have to examine the transaction and the applicable tax rules rather than simply rely on the size of the figures involved.
It is therefore more accurate to describe the matter as a case involving an alleged €1.29 billion tax shortfall than to state that Campari or its chairman has already been found guilty of evasion.

The role of Alicros and Lagfin

The background to the investigation lies in the ownership structure of the group. Alicros was the Italian company that directly controlled Campari, while Lagfin was a Luxembourg-based holding company within the ownership chain. The 2018 merger consolidated the two structures and placed the controlling stake in Campari within the Luxembourg-based entity.
According to prosecutors and the Guardia di Finanza, the operation should have been accompanied by the correct tax treatment of gains that had accrued in Italy. Investigators believe that the required tax was not paid in full.
The distinction matters because the mere existence of a foreign holding company does not establish tax wrongdoing. Companies often operate across borders, and holding structures can serve legitimate corporate purposes. The issue is whether the particular restructuring complied with Italian tax law and whether the people involved fulfilled the obligations that prosecutors say applied.
That is the question the judicial process will need to address if a judge orders a trial.

The €1.29 billion share seizure in 2025

The investigation had already drawn major attention in October 2025, when Italy’s Guardia di Finanza seized Campari shares held by Lagfin. The value of the assets covered by the measure was reported at approximately €1.292 billion, corresponding to the amount of tax that investigators believed had not been paid.
The measure was a precautionary seizure, not a final judgment establishing criminal liability. It concerned shares held by the Luxembourg holding company, rather than an indiscriminate seizure of all Campari assets. That distinction is important when assessing what the authorities did and what the action means for the listed company.
A seizure can preserve assets while a case is investigated or adjudicated, but it does not by itself resolve the merits of the allegations. The legal outcome depends on the subsequent proceedings and the decisions made by the competent authorities and courts.
The 2025 measure therefore forms part of the background to the current request for trial, but it should not be presented as a definitive finding that the alleged offence occurred.

The €405 million tax settlement: what it did and did not resolve

In December 2025, Lagfin reached an agreement with Italy’s Revenue Agency to settle a tax dispute for approximately €405 million, to be paid in instalments over four years. That agreement was a significant development on the tax-administration side of the case.
However, a tax settlement and a criminal investigation are not necessarily the same proceeding. Under the distinction described in reporting on this case, settling the tax dispute did not automatically terminate the separate criminal process. Prosecutors could still assess whether the evidence supported criminal allegations against individuals, and a judge must now decide whether the case against Garavoglia and Berto should go to trial.
The three key figures must therefore remain separate. The €5.3 billion refers to the capital gains that investigators say were not declared correctly. The €1.29 billion is the alleged tax shortfall. The €405 million is the amount agreed in the separate tax settlement. Treating the settlement as if it were simply a payment of the full alleged criminal tax amount would give readers a misleading picture of the case.

Lagfin’s position and the statute-of-limitations issue

After news of the trial request emerged, Lagfin said it was entirely unrelated to the current proceedings against Garavoglia. The holding company also stated that its own position concerning the same facts had already been dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds by a decree dated 9 July 2026.
Lagfin consequently said it would not suffer financial prejudice as a result of the proceedings now being discussed. This is the company’s stated position and should be attributed to it rather than treated as a court finding that resolves every question surrounding the broader controversy.
A dismissal based on the statute of limitations is not the same as a judgment that examines all the evidence and declares a person innocent or guilty on the merits. It means that the proceeding against the entity concerned has been brought to an end on a specific legal ground. The legal position of a company and the position of individuals connected with it are not automatically identical.
That distinction is central to understanding why the holding company can say its own case has been dismissed while prosecutors are still seeking a trial for two individuals.

What happens next?

The next step is a preliminary hearing, which must be scheduled by the competent judge. The judge will examine whether the case should proceed to trial or whether another procedural decision is warranted. Until that decision is made, it is premature to say that the criminal trial has begun.
The prosecution’s request is an important procedural development, but it remains a request. It is not a conviction and does not establish criminal responsibility. The presumption of innocence remains applicable unless and until a final judicial decision determines otherwise.
The lawyers representing Garavoglia and Berto have said that the proceedings will demonstrate their clients’ innocence. Lagfin has also stated that Garavoglia believes he acted correctly and in full compliance with the law and intends to defend himself vigorously.
The court will ultimately have to consider the legal and factual questions surrounding the restructuring, the tax treatment of the gains and the evidence concerning the individuals involved.

Who is Luca Garavoglia?

Luca Garavoglia is the chairman of Campari and the family’s principal shareholder through the group’s ownership structure. He has occupied the chairmanship for decades and is a central figure in the company’s governance.
That makes the investigation significant beyond the individual allegations. It concerns the leadership of an internationally recognised Italian business, the tax treatment of cross-border corporate reorganisations and the boundary between lawful tax planning and conduct that prosecutors believe may breach criminal law.
It is important, however, not to turn the prominence of the company or the size of the alleged amount into a substitute for evidence. A high-profile investigation deserves scrutiny, but the conclusions must follow the legal process rather than precede it.

What could the case mean for Campari and investors?

Legal proceedings involving the chairman of a major listed group can attract the attention of investors, employees, business partners and customers. The actual impact will depend on how the case develops, whether a trial is ordered, what evidence emerges and whether any court decision affects the group’s ownership structure or financial position.
Three positions should be kept separate: Garavoglia’s personal legal position, Lagfin’s status as the controlling holding company, and Campari’s position as the listed operating group. The allegations against individuals do not automatically establish liability on the part of the listed company. Equally, it would be premature to rule out every possible consequence before the judicial process has progressed.
For investors, the relevant issues include transparency, legal and tax risk management, corporate governance and any implications for the ownership structure. For the public, the case illustrates how complex international corporate reorganisations can become when tax obligations are disputed across jurisdictions.
No reliable conclusion about the ultimate financial or legal consequences can be drawn solely from the request for trial. Those consequences will depend on the evidence and on subsequent decisions.

The facts that should not be confused

The Campari case is not yet a criminal conviction. As of 11 October 2026, the key development is that prosecutors in Monza have requested a trial for Luca Garavoglia and Giovanni Berto over an alleged €1.29 billion tax shortfall.
Investigators say the case concerns approximately €5.3 billion in capital gains that were allegedly not declared correctly during a corporate restructuring. Lagfin separately reached a €405 million tax settlement in December 2025, and it says its own position was dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds in July 2026. The defence denies wrongdoing, and a judge must now decide whether the individuals should stand trial.
The figures are substantial, and the case raises important questions about corporate governance and cross-border taxation. But the distinction between an allegation, a tax settlement, a procedural dismissal and a criminal conviction is essential. The next judicial decision will determine whether the accusations proceed to a full trial; until then, responsibility remains a matter to be established by the courts.

Related articles

Shakira Cleared in the €60 Million Tax Fraud Case
https://www.commentalanotizia.com/2026/05/shakira-assolta-frode-fiscale-60-milioni.html
Italy’s 2026 Tax Checks on Self-Employed Workers: How the System Works
https://www.commentalanotizia.com/2026/09/partite-iva-controlli-fisco-2026-email-google-calendar.html
Italy’s Market Watchdog Blocks Illegal Trading Websites
https://www.commentalanotizia.com/2026/07/consob-oscura-siti-trading-abusivo-truffe-online.html
The Fideuram Scam: How AI Was Allegedly Used in a €95 Million Fraud
https://www.commentalanotizia.com/2026/09/truffa-fideuram-intelligenza-artificiale-95-milioni.html
Santanchè’s Resignation and the Visibilia–INPS Scandal
https://www.commentalanotizia.com/2026/03/santanche-dimissioni-2026-ministra-turismo-scandalo-visibilia-inps.html

👉 Want to read the full original article? Read it on Commenta La Notizia:👇
https://www.commentalanotizia.com/2026/10/campari-luca-garavoglia-presunta-evasione-fiscale.html
The original article is in Italian. You can use your browser’s automatic translation feature if needed.

Subscribe and vote for all articles 👇
https://www.publish0x.com/goldweb?a=xkazKWYYbJ

💬 Join us on Telegram to comment and follow all the insights
👉 https://t.me/CommentaLaNotizia

© 2026 CommentalaNotizia.com - All rights reserved
Official sources used under fair use

📺 Follow Commenta La Notizia for deeper insights, global analysis, and fearless discussions about the issues that shape our world — from politics and technology to society and the hidden forces behind the headlines.
⚠️ Legal Notice This article and the related multimedia content are the exclusive property of the author. Copying, reproduction, distribution, or modification in any form or on any platform is prohibited without written permission.
Copyright © CondividiSulWeb – YouTube Commenta La Notizia

👤 Author: @condividisulweb

✍️ Commenta La Notizia is my editorial project created to provide clear and engaging insights into news, events, and major current issues.
Every article, video, and short is made with a clear goal: not only to inform, but also to give context, reflection points, and analysis to understand not just what happens, but especially why it happens.
With Commenta La Notizia I want to build a reliable and accessible space where everyone can get informed, understand, and join the discussion.
🌐 If you want to stay updated, you can follow me here.
💬 Your opinion matters! Every piece of news is a chance to discuss: share your thoughts and make your voice heard.
📰 Comment, share, stay informed.

🙏 Thank you for reading: your time and your opinion are the true value
https://www.commentalanotizia.com/

✍️ SUPPORT FREE INFORMATION✍️

⚠️REMEMBER, YOU CAN VOTE ON ALL ARTICLES EVERY HOUR
AND REGISTER FOR FREE TO VOTE!⚠️

👇👇👇👇 😍 HELP GROW MY PASSION😍 👇👇👇👇

• CommentaLaNotizia.com

• Telegram

• Publish0x

• Blurt

• Steemit

• Facebook

• X

• YouTube

• Pinterest

• Other platforms coming soon