Everything you need to know about the huge corruption Scandal rocking the city of Milan

Milan, a city long celebrated as Italy’s economic engine and a beacon of modernity, now finds itself ensnared in a sprawling urban planning corruption scandal, casting a long shadow over its gleaming skyline and its reputation as a ‘moral capital’. This pervasive investigation, which has been two years in the making, implicates a staggering 74 individuals, including high-profile figures such as its Mayor, Giuseppe Sala, along with a network of public officials, influential architects, prominent businessmen, and seasoned politicians.

Prosecutors in Milan have unequivocally decried what they term “pilotate decisions and conflicts of interest“, asserting that “development without legality is a deception and a trap”. The core of the accusation points to a “synergistic commingling between the world of entrepreneurship and politics and the technical-administrative apparatus of the Comune”, painting a vivid picture of an entrenched system designed to bypass legitimate processes for private gain.

Key Figures and Allegations

At the heart of this unfolding drama is Mayor Giuseppe Sala, a figure once synonymous with Milan’s modern resurgence, now under investigation for “false declarations on own or others’ personal qualities” and “undue inducement to give or promise utilities”. A particularly damning accusation concerns his reconfirmation of Giuseppe Marinoni as president of the Landscape Commission in December 2024. This decision is viewed by prosecutors not as a mere oversight, but as a “deliberate choice”, effectively enabling the continuation of a “consolidated mechanism” that had operated unchecked for years.

The Mayor of Milan, Sala, now under investigation

Sala is further implicated in the controversial Pirellino project, where he allegedly exerted “mediated pressures” to ensure its approval. Intercepted chat messages unearthed by investigators suggest that Sala was “informed of everything” and intimately shared the strategies employed by Marinoni and the companies involved. The mayor himself expressed feeling “allucinante” (shocked) upon learning of his investigation from newspapers rather than the Procura, maintaining his honesty and commitment to his work for Milan. He is expected to address the City Council on Monday to provide his version of events. This is not Sala’s first encounter with judicial scrutiny; he was previously investigated as the sole commissioner for Expo 2015, an inquiry that later saw the prescription of the false declaration charge he faced. His broader political aspirations, including a potential bid for premiership, now hang precariously in the balance.

The former Assessor for Urban Regeneration, Giancarlo Tancredi, faces an even more immediate legal threat, with prosecutors requesting his house arrest for alleged false statements and corruption. Tancredi has subsequently offered his resignation. He is portrayed by the prosecution as a central and operational figure within the alleged “system”, providing both political and technical support and acting as a crucial “operational intermediary”. Accusations include his alleged role in inducing Mayor Sala to reconfirm Marinoni, and of being subject to intense pressure from architects and developers, particularly in the contentious Pirellino case. He is described as a “technical” assessor, lacking the usual party backing, which makes his situation particularly vulnerable. Prosecutors emphasize that Tancredi, pressured by architects like Boeri and developers like Catella, and “threatened by the ‘rupture'” that a project’s rejection would cause, “insisted behind the scenes with Marinoni, also reporting that Mayor Sala had received complaints from Catella and Boeri so that he would decide to express himself favorably on the intervention”.

The architect Giuseppe Marinoni, former President of the Landscape Commission, is a primary target of the investigation, with an arrest warrant requested against him. He stands accused of “false declarations on personal qualities” and widespread corruption, branded by prosecutors as an “unscrupulous wheeler-dealer” and a “faccendiere”. The core of his alleged misconduct lies in a “permanent conflict of interest”: he purportedly accepted substantial professional assignments from companies whose projects he was simultaneously evaluating in his official public capacity. Evidence suggests he amassed over 400,000 euros in fees, including 370,000 euros from J+S spa alone. Marinoni is depicted as the architect of a “shadow PGT” (Piano di Governo del Territorio, a city development tool) – an informal, parallel urban planning scheme that allegedly sidestepped official regulations and dictated Milan’s urban development. Furthermore, he is accused of drafting portions of a Lombardy regional law specifically designed to benefit his and Manfredi Catella’s interests. Investigators also found WhatsApp messages in Marinoni’s phone that “clearly reveal the illicit interferences received and finally accepted”. He was considered “ricattabile” (blackmailable) by the prosecutors.

Another key figure is Alessandro Scandurra, a member of the Landscape Commission, who faces accusations of false attestations and corruption. He allegedly received nearly 2.6 million euros from Kryalos Sgr between 2018 and 2024 for professional assignments, explicitly aimed at influencing the commission’s decisions on projects such as “Via Verziere 11” and “Via Cavallotti 4”. An arrest request has also been issued for him. Evidence also points to him requesting favors from Boeri, such as a reference for his son studying art.

The powerful real estate developer Manfredi Catella, CEO of Coima, is also under request for house arrest, with Coima Sgr itself under investigation. Catella’s company manages an impressive 10 billion euros across 33 funds. He is central to the controversial Pirellino project and is accused of exerting “threatening imposition and pressures” on the Landscape Commission. Prosecutors allege a “solid criminal agreement” between Catella, Marinoni, and Tancredi. Chat messages between Catella and Marinoni reveal a “full collaboration” and a “common interest”, with Catella thanking Marinoni for “the time you are dedicating to preliminary verifications for projects with greater urban relevance”. He famously “threatened the aut aut” to the Comune if Pirellino was rejected, stating “then time will be up”. Coima had acquired the former municipal building for the Pirellino project in 2019.

The renowned architect Stefano Boeri, who designed the ill-fated Pirellino project, is also subject to an arrest request. He is accused of “undue pressures” on Marinoni and communicating with Mayor Sala and Assessor Tancredi in “very resolute and commanding tones” to secure project approval. A message from Boeri to Sala on June 21, 2023, the day before a crucial commission meeting, highlighted a “situation that makes me scared, it’s not good…” and advised Sala to “take it as a warning” for the next day’s decision. He explicitly stated that “Marinoni is making a mistake in asking for stylistic variations that are not within the commission’s competence” and threatened “rupture” and “Tar appeal and Catella going to the newspapers” if Marinoni insisted. Boeri also faces investigations related to the “Bosconavigli” and the “Beic European Library” projects, the latter involving alleged bid rigging.

Specific Projects and Controversies

The Pirellino Project (P39) stands as a stark symbol of the alleged systemic irregularities. This ambitious redevelopment, which aimed to transform a former municipal building, acquired by Coima, into a “Botanical Tower” designed by Boeri, initially faced two unequivocal negative opinions from the Landscape Commission. Yet, through alleged “undue pressures” and subsequent maneuvers, including an alteration of the PGT, the project later received approval. Despite this, the project remains stalled, lacking a crucial building permit. The Council of State, in a separate ruling, criticized the Comune for delays in approving a PGT variant favorable to Coima, though it denied Coima’s request for compensation, noting the company’s own contribution to the delays. Even Marinoni and fellow commission member Giacomo De Amicis initially considered the “Botanical Tower” project “strongly impactful, out of context and incongruous” before “ceding to the undue pressures”.

“Pirellino” Skyscraper from Wikipedia

The “Nodi Metropolitani” or “Porte Metropolitane Milano 2050” plan, meticulously drafted by Marinoni, sought to dramatically increase building volumes across nine strategic metropolitan areas, including Cascina Gobba, San Donato, Famagosta, Molino Dorino, Baggio, Opera, Figino, Linate, and Assago. The Comune’s official patronage for this plan, personally signed by Mayor Sala and proposed by Tancredi on January 12, 2023, is considered by prosecutors an “artificial instrument” designed to circumvent standard regulatory processes and controls. This informal “Pgt ombra” (shadow PGT) aimed to steer Milan’s urban development through parallel channels, with strategic studies paid for by the very developers who would later seek commission approval. Marinoni was observed actively soliciting companies like J+S to bring “an album on Famagosta and one on Porta Metropolitana Nordovest,” confirming his work was already in the hands of top political and technical figures in the Comune.

Even iconic city landmarks are touched by the scandal; the highly anticipated sale of the San Siro Stadium (Meazza) to Inter and Milan football clubs is now reportedly at risk. Allegations include Marinoni’s ongoing conflicts of interest concerning works related to the stadium, facilitated by Tancredi, who allegedly sought support for assignments related to the stadium from businessman Massimo Caputi. Intercepted chats referencing stadium matters date back as far as 2023, indicating a long-standing pattern.

The controversial “Salva Milano” Decree, a bill intended to unblock stalled construction projects by reinterpreting urban planning rules, highlights the legislative entanglement within this scandal. While initially supported by Sala’s administration and segments of the center-right, it was ultimately “sunk” by the Five Star Movement and a faction within the Democratic Party. Critics, such as Ignazio La Russa, derisively labeled it “Salva Giunta Sala,” suggesting its true purpose was to safeguard the current administration. Mayor Sala defended the decree, citing the need for “rapid instruments” to attract investment and maintain competitiveness, emphasizing that such procedures were, in his view, “clearly legal”. The broader issue of urban planning laws in Milan is characterized by “unclear laws, different interpretations, [and] almost lawful or unlawful forcing”. The bill passed the Chamber but stalled in the Senate due to doubts from the Democratic Party and the ongoing investigations.

The overarching picture painted by the investigation reveals a sophisticated, deeply integrated system of alleged corruption within Milanese urban planning. The Landscape Commission, originally designed to ensure proper development, had, by 2010, transformed into a “parallel organism” wielding “immense power”, effectively guiding the city’s transformations more than the official junta itself. This system allegedly allowed the construction of “ecomostri” (monstrous buildings) even in residential courtyards without proper building permits or environmental impact analyses. Startlingly, intercepted conversations reveal professionals expressing “horror” at the very practices they were compelled to justify, recognizing that such “casermoni” (large, ugly buildings) would not be allowed in other parts of Italy. The financial implications are staggering: estimates suggest Milan has forfeited approximately 1.5 billion euros in urbanization fees over the past 15 years due to alleged irregularities, with an additional 150 million euros linked specifically to the buildings currently under judicial scrutiny. This financial drain results from practices such as considering skyscraper constructions as mere “renovations” to avoid proper fees, and the alleged undervaluing of public land, particularly around key areas like San Siro, at values “little more than 400 euros per square meter”. The “incredible commingling” of supervised and supervisor – where “all are friends, all companions” – points to a profound erosion of public trust and transparent governance. This “opaque governance” system saw strategic projects managed through informal contacts, personal pressures, and public acts driven by external interests. Milan’s once-celebrated “Milano da bere” (Milan to drink) slogan of the 1980s, a symbol of prosperity and dynamism, now risks becoming a “brutal parody” in the face of these revelations.

Political Reactions

The scandal has predictably ignited a fierce political firestorm across Italy. The Democratic Party (Pd), which forms the backbone of Mayor Sala’s administration, finds itself in a precarious position. While publicly expressing “vicinity” and “solidarity” with Sala, the party is visibly embarrassed and struggling to present a unified defense. There are internal calls for an “urban planning turning point” to urgently address the city’s severe housing crisis and curb speculative development. The Pd is notably divided on the immediate fate of Assessor Tancredi, with some advocating for his swift resignation to “shield Sala”. Initially, the party leadership, including Elly Schlein, maintained a “fragoroso silenzio” and avoided public statements, later opting for private phone calls to express “vicinanza”.

The Center-Right parties have seized upon the crisis, launching scathing critiques. The Lega and Fratelli d’Italia (FdI) have been particularly vocal, with the Lega demanding new elections, citing the “administrative incapacity” of Sala’s junta. Ignazio La Russa of FdI has unequivocally declared the administration “inadequate” and accused it of “selling out” the city to wealthy elites. Both parties actively participated in a protest flash mob in Piazza Scala, displaying banners like “Resign, Sala and his junta free Milan”. Matteo Salvini, while adopting a “garantist” stance, believes it would be “just to return the word to the citizens and go to vote”. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni (FdI), however, has maintained a more “garantist” and nuanced position, stating that an arrest warrant “does not automatically lead to resignation”. She emphasized that Mayor Sala should decide based on his “capacity to govern” under the circumstances, and stressed that her position does not change based on the “political color of the investigated person”. Minister of Defense Guido Crosetto (FdI) further complicated the narrative by criticizing a “politicized part of the judiciary” in Milan for allegedly exceeding its role in urban planning. Meanwhile, Forza Italia (FI) and Noi Moderati have also adopted a “garantist” approach, explicitly rejecting calls for a “spallata giudiziaria” (judicial coup). Maurizio Lupi of Noi Moderati highlighted the “paralysis” of Milan, attributing it to the long-standing left-wing administration, regardless of the investigation’s outcome. He also ironically welcomed Sala to “among those who complain about warnings published by newspapers”.

The Movimento 5 Stelle (M5S), led by Giuseppe Conte, has been resolute in its call for Sala’s resignation, condemning the “opacity” of Milan’s building management and accusing the administration of “selling out” the city to millionaires. M5S group leader in Lombardy, Nicola Di Marco, stated that since the M5S denounced the “Salva-Milano” abuses, they have been demanding a change of pace, and resignations should be “the last act of the Sala junta”.

Consequences for the City

The Milan corruption scandal presents a cascade of severe consequences, threatening the city’s vitality and future trajectory:

• Paralysis of Urban Development: The most immediate and tangible impact is the stalling of numerous construction sites across the city. With the Landscape Commission, a crucial authorizing body, now effectively paralyzed by resignations and ongoing investigations, there is a profound fear that Milan’s celebrated status as an “economic locomotive” is in jeopardy. This paralysis could lead to frozen investments and a significant slowdown in crucial urban regeneration projects. As one architect noted, the administration may “close down” and refuse to grant any more permits, creating an “impasse determined by fear” that negatively impacts a strategic sector like construction. The “impasse determined by fear would be negative for everyone,” with “answers not arriving” from municipal offices.
• Loss of Public Funds and Resources: The financial toll on the city’s public coffers is substantial. Former Vice Mayor Luigi Corbani estimated that Milan has collectively lost approximately 5 billion euros in urbanization fees over the past 15 years due to alleged irregularities, which were “never made and not even monetized”. A more specific loss of 150 million euros is directly linked to the buildings currently under the scrutiny of magistrates. This financial drain results from practices such as considering skyscraper constructions as mere “renovations” to avoid proper fees, and the alleged undervaluing of public land, particularly around key areas like San Siro, at values “little more than 400 euros per square meter”.
• Exacerbation of the Housing Crisis and Social Inequality: The scandal deepens Milan’s already acute housing crisis. Thousands of homebuyers, a group now tragically referred to as “Famiglie Sospese” (Suspended Families), are directly impacted. They have invested substantial sums, often hundreds of thousands of euros, in projects that are now under judicial seizure, leaving them without homes and facing immense difficulty in recovering their money. The city is increasingly perceived as “exclusive” and accessible only to the wealthy, with soaring and often unaffordable housing prices compelling essential workers, students, and middle-class families to seek residence outside the city limits. This has transformed Milan into what some describe as an “expanded factory” that operates primarily from Monday to Friday, leading to a “disumanized” urban reality and a compromised social fabric.
• Erosion of Public Trust and Governance Concerns: The investigation starkly illuminates an alleged system of “opaque governance” where strategic urban development projects were managed through informal contacts, personal pressures, and questionable public acts. This alleged bypassing of official regulations and the “synergistic commingling” of business and politics fundamentally undermines the integrity of the city’s public administration and raises profound questions about whether public-private collaborations can be conducted without corruption. The transformation of Milan’s aspirational “Milano da bere” image into a “brutal parody” due to these revelations signifies a significant blow to public confidence. There is a “climate of distrust” among construction companies, risking a halt in new projects.
• Political Instability and Damage to Milan’s Image: The scandal has plunged Mayor Sala’s administration and the broader center-left coalition into considerable political instability. It has transcended a local issue to become a national political battleground, with opposition parties leveraging the crisis to challenge the ruling coalition. This threatens to tarnish Milan’s carefully cultivated image as Italy’s “moral capital” and a vibrant, attractive global city. The narrative surrounding Milan’s development now shifts from one of “honesty and development” to one riddled with “hypocrisy” and “paralysis”. The city, once a symbol of innovation and growth, risks being viewed as a place where “administering equates to delinquency”. The very skyline, once a source of pride, is now a symbol of “impermissible fault”. This situation has led to calls for the center-right to “rapidly identify candidates and projects for Milan”, indicating a potential shift in the city’s political landscape.

Ultimately, the Milan corruption scandal is not merely a legal or political crisis; it is a profound challenge to the city’s identity and its future trajectory. It compels a re-evaluation of its development model, demanding a renewed commitment to transparency, legality, and social inclusivity to restore public trust and ensure that its growth benefits all citizens, not just a select few.