ITALIAN CRIMINAL LEGISLATION IN THE FIELD OF WHITE-COLLAR CRIMES DOES NOT MAKE ANY PROVISIONS FOR THE GROUPS VICTIMIZED TO BE REPRESENTED IN COURT AS COLLECTIVE PLAINTIFFS, OR TO HAVE SOME INPUT IN THE CRIMINAL LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. A NEWLY ENACTED LAW (REFERRED TO AS 'THE MERLI LAW' FROM THE NAME OF ITS SPONSORS) CAN BE SUBJECTED TO SPECIAL CRITICISM, BECAUSE OF ONE OF ITS KEY ARTICLES PRESCRIBING THE CONDITIONS TO BE SET BY JUDGES FOR GRANTING 'PROBATION' TO CORPORATE DEFENDANTS IN SOME WHITE-COLLAR CRIME CASES. THE EXAMPLE CHOSEN TO CLARIFY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS LAW, A CASE INVOLVING AN INDUSTRIAL PLANT CHARGED WITH POLLUTING THE ENVIRONMENT WITH POISONOUS DISCHARGES, IS DEPLORABLE NOT ONLY FOR THE AMBIGUITIES OF LANGUAGE USED IN DESCRIBING IT, BUT ALSO BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO GIVE THE JUDGE THE POWER TO ALLOW THE DEFENDANTS TO GO FREE MAKING A MOCKERY OF THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF PROBATION. PROBATION SHOULD BE GRANTED BASED ON PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE POSSIBILITIES FOR SOCIAL REINTEGRATION OF INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS AND ON CONDITION THAT SOME FORM OF COMPENSATION TO THE VICTIMS BE PROVIDED BY THE PROBATIONER. THE EXAMPLE CITED IN ARTICLE 24 OF THE MERLI LAW DOES NOT EVEN INDICATE WHO THE PERSONAL DEFENDANTS MIGHT BE (THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE FIRM? THE MAJORITY STOCKHOLDERS? ONE OR TWO KEY EXECUTIVES?) BUT THE PLAINTIFFS COULD BE EASILY IDENTIFIED AS THE PLANT WORKERS AND THE PEOPLE LIVING NEAR THE PLANT IN THE AREA ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE POLLUTANTS. THEY SHOULD ALL BE REPRESENTED IN COURT AND COMPENSATED BY THE GUILTY PARTY, WHICH SHOULD ALSO BE PENALIZED WITH PAYING FOR ALL NECESSARY CLEANUP OPERATIONS AND WITH FINES SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO EXCEED ANY PROFITS ACCRUED TO THE PLANT IN THE COURSE OF ITS CRIMINALLY NEGLIGANT ACTIVITIES. THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANTS IN SUCH CASES SHOULD BE CLEARLY STATED. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED, AND A BIBLIOGRAPHY IS APPENDED. --IN ITALIAN. (LGR)