Home Sports Juve-capital gains, the strategy for appealing to Coni: interceptions and inadmissible bis trial

Juve-capital gains, the strategy for appealing to Coni: interceptions and inadmissible bis trial

by admin
Juve-capital gains, the strategy for appealing to Coni: interceptions and inadmissible bis trial

After the 15-point penalty, the Lady waits for the reasons to prepare the appeal. You will point to the presumed illegitimacy of the sentence and the lack of malice in the operations

Filippo Cornacchia and Fabiana Della Valle

The most difficult match has just begun and will last more than 90 minutes. Juventus will challenge the sentence of the Coni Court of Appeal before the Coni Guarantee College which last Friday sentenced it to 15 penalty points (plus several months of inhibition for Agnelli, Paratici, Nedved, Cherubini and other managers).

Maurizio Scanavino in the Juventus-Atalanta pre-match on Sunday reiterated a key concept: for the Bianconeri it is an injustice that will be fought against in all possible venues. To understand how the club will move, we will have to wait for the reasons, which will be published by January 30, and on which the defensive line will be based by the lawyers Maurizio Bellacosa, Davide Sangiorgio and Nicola Apa.

Admissibility

The first round will be played on legitimacy. In fact, the Coni Guarantee Panel expresses itself only on the violation of legal rules: it decides on the form and not on the merits, or it can annul the sentence, confirm it or refer the judgment to the Court for a new trial. Then Juve will be able to appeal to the Lazio TAR and then to the Council of State. In the Appeal, the knot is on the admissibility of the revocation that led to the new trial on capital gains (Juventus had already been judged and acquitted in the first and second instance): were there significantly new facts to be able to do so? According to Juventus’ lawyers, the Public Prosecutor’s Office would have exceeded the deadline for presenting the request: the documents would not have been received by the Federcalcio on 24 November but on 27 October, while Chiné’s request was signed on 22 December, therefore more than 30 days later , term established by the sports justice code.

See also  Superbonus 110%, the government ready to extend to 2023 - Economy

Interceptions in favor

Juventus is also waiting to understand why only it was punished and not the other clubs involved (“difference in treatment”) and why it is attributed to “the violation of a rule that the sporting justice itself had acknowledged did not exist”, the recourse to the capital gains. The defense disputes the Federal Prosecutor’s reading also on wiretapping. In his defense brief, he argues that in the conversation of 29 July 2021 between Fabio Paratici, formerly at Tottenham, and Cherubini, “the meaning” is “the opposite of the prosecution’s thesis” according to which “the player ‘exchange’ policy was not dictated by reasons of a technical nature, but intentionally aimed at creating predetermined revenues and corresponding capitalized costs to be entered in the financial statements”. For the club’s lawyers, listening to the entire dialogue would reveal in an “even more obvious way” how it is “entirely focused on issues of a technical nature”. The memorandum also speaks of “improper transfer” of wiretaps: the Federal Prosecutor’s Office does not report the content of a very significant wiretap between Cherubini and Bertola, a former Juve manager, of 15 July 2021, the final part of which, not transcribed by the Guardia di Finanza , would be “significant in terms of non-existence of the offense (criminal and, as far as relevant here, sporting)”. It is a post Consob audit conversation, in which, speaking of capital gains, Bertola says to Cherubini: “There is no malicious intent. If they are looking for that, they will not find anything”.

Capital gains without malice

See also  George Russell-Mercedes: the stages of a predestined career in F1

It is probable that the lawyers are also relying on the reasons with which the examining magistrate of the Court of Turin rejected the requests for disqualification measures for Agnelli and other suspects in the investigation into the club’s accounts on 12 October, writing that if Juventus complied with the standard practice on capital gains “it would be difficult to hypothesize a conscious, and therefore willful, departure from the correct criteria for postal accounting”.

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