Home Sports Capital gains Juve, the defense brief against the decision of the FIGC prosecutor

Capital gains Juve, the defense brief against the decision of the FIGC prosecutor

by admin
Capital gains Juve, the defense brief against the decision of the FIGC prosecutor

In the appeal against the -15 sentence, the Juventus club speaks of “improper ‘transfer’ of the results of the telephone and environmental interceptions” and cites a Cherubini-Bertola dialogue

“No no, is there no intent?” and again: “Malicious no. If they’re the one they’re looking for they won’t find anything, they won’t find anything”. This was stated by Stefano Bertola, at the time the manager in charge of Juventus’ accounting records, according to what emerges from an interception regarding the alleged capital gains, which takes place in the context of the Consob inspection, referring to a conversation on 15 July 2021. highlighting it is the defensive brief of Juve, presented for the appeal to the FIGC Court last Friday.


The answer goes to Federico Cherubini, then manager in charge of the Juventus market area, in a conversation that Cherubini begins like this: “But in my opinion, here from the spirit it seems that what they (Consob inspectors, ed) are looking for it’s understanding where we are… as if there has been a clear overvaluation, as if among our cards there was I don’t know… look, Pjanic is worth 20 but we’re selling him at 50, as if there was an awareness of that… I I believe that this… every time there has been the attribution of a value, I repeat it may have also been done in a more or less correct way, it’s not that it was so…”. Bertola’s first answer is: “No no, isn’t there any intent?”. Interrupted by Cherubini who says: “Here I am Roby”, to then see Bertola continue with the rest of the initial sentence.

See also  The Imoco has a Paola Egonu from the golden ball to try again to win the most precious cup

The defence

And it is in this regard that the defense brief speaks of “improper ‘transfer’ of the results of telephone and environmental interceptions, where one wishes to fathom the very partial content. One cannot fail to highlight, even if only by way of example – the brief continues – that the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office does not report in its document the content of a very significant interception between Cherubini and Bertola on 15 July 2021, of which the Gdf in its annotation does not report the very significant final part in terms of non-existence of the offense (criminal and, as far as it is relevant here, sporty)”.

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

Privacy & Cookies Policy