Justice reform Charles Nordio? “It goes in the direction of always making harder the control of legality on white collar crime. And will make it again citizens are more defenceless compared to abuse of power“. Word of Antonino DiMatteoan expert anti-mafia investigator, who returned a few weeks ago to be a deputy prosecutor at the National direction after the experience from togato al Superior Council of the Judiciary. According to the prosecutor, the bill approved by the Council of Ministers will have some deleterious effects on investigations. “Among other things, it will also penalize investigations into the increasingly dangerous relationships between the mafias and public administrations“, explains Di Matteo, referring to the abolition of the crime of abuse of office. In the past, in fact, many investigations into the links between politics and organized crime arose from simple complaints by citizens against public administrators. Give her abuse hypothesis, therefore, the spotlights then illuminated much more extensive events, which concerned hypotheses of corruption and aiding and abetting the mafia. “In this sense the abuse of office was a spy crime: a complaint was investigated but then much greater responsibilities were discovered”, continues the prosecutor. Which therefore shares the opinion of the colleague Nicola Gratteri: abuse of office is a spy crime, i.e. it indicates the possible presence of others violations of the law. Opinion contested by Minister Nordio: “Either there is a crime or there isn’t – said the Minister of Justice – You can’t go trawling for something that is an indicator of another crime”.
The professor’s opinion differs from Nordio’s Frank Coppilegal historian of Silvio Berlusconiaccording to whom abolishing the abuse of office “is not a big deal show of wit, because it will mean that the prosecutors will proceed for corruptionit will widen the utility concept and instead of abuse we will have the corruption”. Di Matteo disagrees: “Corruption is another type of crime, it involves the exchange of money or other benefits, while abuse of office punishes a different type of conduct, i.e. the personal favoritism. It’s the old man private interest in official acts, repealed in 1990″. The prosecutor points out that the abolition of the abuse of office takes place while “they are arriving billion of the Pnrr to spend. Without considering that recently, with the Procurement Code, the minimum thresholds for the direct assignments without tender“.
Di Matteo also disputes the part of the provision that limits the publication of interceptions: with the Nordio reform, in fact, it will only be possible to bring to the attention of public opinion the ratings contained in a custodial order or in a possible provision of the Court of Review. On the other hand, it will be forbidden to disseminate what is reported in the requests of the Prosecutor’s Office or in the police information attached to investigative documents. A fundamental difference, given that sometimes the investigating judge does not mention conversations in the ordinances that do not serve to justify the measure, but which can be important for public opinion. And what about relevant interceptions that never appear in the ordinances anyway? The examples of news that today we may no longer read are wasted: they range from the words spoken in prison by Joseph Graviano on massacres (which led to the reopening of the investigations into the 1993 bombs) to the talks snatched up by the bugs planted in the living room of Joseph Guttadauro, the mafia boss who would later get Totò Cuffaro into trouble. “This reform – says Di Matteo – will impose a further information gag which will curtail the right of every citizen to become acquainted with the facts and reports of great public significance. It is a gag that is in absolute continuity with the one introduced by the reform of Marta Cartabia“.
Another novelty introduced by the reform is a sort of arrest notice for suspects: before disposing remand in prison, in fact, the judge will have to interrogate the suspect, notifying him of the invitation “at least five days before“. The provision is not valid if the precautionary requirements exist danger of escape oh you evidence pollutionor by the repetition of the most serious crimes come mafia e terrorismor those “committed with the use of weapons or by other means of personal violence”. “This rule seems to me evidently aimed at facilitating the persons accused of crimes against the public administrationthat’s why I say that the reform goes in the direction of making it increasingly difficult to control the legality of criminality White collars“, says DiMatteo. In fact, the interrogation five days before the arrest applies above all to the alleged corrupt or corrupting persons: to arrest them it will be necessary “warn them” in advance. A mechanism that for the prosecutor is “sort of of encouragement to escape. In practice you run a deadly riskthere is a risk of fleeing which did not exist up to that moment, also because perhaps the suspect did not know he was under investigation“. However, couldn’t the interrogation with the risk of ending up under arrest push the suspect to confess or confirm part of the accusations? “It would be paradoxical if this mechanism were triggered, i.e. the use of threat of custody as a sort of invitation to confession and to denunciation“, says DiMatteo. Use the prison as bogeyman to get a confessionamong other things, is the accusation that many exponents of this government majority have often launched against the magistrates of Tangentopoli.