“I’m a huge fan of Napoli, I hate Juventus”. And it started there social storm unleashed by the fans, even involving the Minister of Sport Andrea Abodi who “reported” – without explaining to whom – the offending video fragment. Two jokes, perhaps out of place, extrapolated from a report lasting more than 45 minutes, have stirred up the controversy on Cyrus Santorielloone of the two prosecutors – coordinated by a third magistrate, Marco Gianoglio – who carried out the investigation into the alleged false accounting of the black and white people during the era Andrea Agnelli. The quality of the work carried out by the pool of the Turin prosecutor’s office – which ended up in the crosshairs of the fans – is expected from a first scrutiny on March 27, when the preliminary hearing before the judge will begin Mark Peak. But in the meantime he raises discussions about the excerpt of a speech by Santoriello in 2019, two years before the investigation that led to the request for indictment of the former president and all the leaders of the Old Lady. It is 14 June and Santoriello is speaking at a round table organized by two law firms (Fornari e Associati e Grassani and associates) con Pwc Tls Lawyers and accountants. The theme is “The organizational model and football clubs: the prevention of offenses between criminal justice and sports justice”.
The fragment: “Tifo Napoli, I hate Juve” – At the end of his report, in an exchange with another speaker, Santoriello specified: “As long as you don’t support Juventus”. But what overheated social networks was above all a previous step. In a speech that mainly concerned the application of the law 231 of 2001or the responsibility of entities for the administrative offences addicted to crime, Santoriello makes one digression – at most questionable for reasons of opportunity – and admits at one point that he is “Naples fan” and adds: “I hate Juventus”. In the hall we laugh and someone asks: “Which is more important of the two?”. The magistrate lets himself go: “Napoli is important as a fan, I am as a prosecutor anti-juventinoi.e. against i robbers in the field, yet I had to write the archives”. For many it is the “proof” of an alleged judicial “aggression”, something that invalidates the work of the Finance Guardborn from the investigations of the Consob and coordinated by three magistrates. Santoriello’s reference is to a previous survey that was entrusted to him: in 2017 it was he – who also dealt with the bankruptcy of theAuxilium Turin – to ask for the archiving of Andrea Agnelli and four other suspects (the former ad Aldo Mazzia and the mayors) in the context of an investigation into false accounting resulting from a complaint by the former president of Bologna Giuseppe Gazzoni Frascara. Based on the judgments of the Cassation relative a Calciopoli which indicated Juventus and the Fiorentina come civil culprits, argued Gazzoni Frascara, the clubs should have set aside a ‘provision for charges and risks’ for any claims for compensation. Having the obligation to exercise the criminal action, in March the Turin prosecutor started the investigations.
When he filed in 2017: “Juve correct” – Santoriello worked on the case at the time alone and not in the pool: three months later, having heard from Juve’s financial manager, Mark King, who had acknowledged that the company risked having to pay but had said that this probability was considered less than 50 percent, asked for the filing, which was later accepted by the judge for the preliminary investigations. The prosecutor wrote: “The concrete deceptive suitability of the financial statements of Juventus Spa, despite wanting to consider them censurable from a civil point of view, is conspicuously absent”. In 13 pages with which he dismantled the complaint of the Victoria 2000 of Gazzoni Frascara, Santoriello explained in detail how the black and white club had behaved in a correct exposing “clearly” in the 2015 and 2016 financial statements the existence of civil cause explaining why he did not feel he should set aside a fund to eventually compensate in civil proceedings. The mode of operation of the bianconeri, said the prosecutor, is “absolutely compliant” to the reference accounting standards and the decisions taken “preclude any possibility of qualifying the financial statements as criminally relevant”. Among other things, Santoriello underlined, the existence of civil cases had been “expressly highlighted in the explanatory note”: “So that no reader of the financial statements can be said to be deceived”. After the controversy, he also took sides alongside Santoriello Luigi Chiapperolawyer of Juventus and who in the Prisma proceeding defends two former Juventus executives: “Un cultured magistrate who has never confused football with right – said to The print – In this regard, I would remember how it was he who filed all the accusations in a past proceeding opened on the accounts of the Juventus club”. During the report, among other things, Santoriello himself made public another occasion in which the Turin prosecutor’s office carried out investigations on Juventus without exercising the criminal action.
The file “open and closed” and Abodi “signals” – The prosecutor explained how, after anegative swing of the title following a 2-0 defeat in Madrid in Champions Leaguesome had been monitored market operationsactually ‘open’ in the previous months: “It may be a coincidence but they’ve been doing it ever since exchanges con Sampdoria e Genoawe as a proxy have activated, we have open and closed the file”. Recognizing no false accounting, he added, “there will probably have been fraud” of the shareholders “but the penalty is not there”. And he underlined: “On the point of capital gains you shouldn’t joke, le problematic which open when you are quoted I’m a problem.” That type of operation then entered the ongoing proceeding, resulting from the investigations of the Consob and assigned by his superiors to him and his colleague Mario Bendoniand are challenged in series also thanks to eavesdropping, never ordered in the other two investigations despite the hypothesis of false accounting allowing them to be requested. In the light of the investigations, the pool considers them the result of one “planning” described as “it needs” e “necessary” in order not to give up on the “major players”. In short, in the light of the latest investigation, exchanges appear to be “bent not on technical-sporting needs but on budgetary needs”. In a further passage of his report, Santoriello had also explained how in the past – when he was on duty in Naples – he dealt with the former president of the Neapolitan club at a judicial level Salvatore Naldiwhich in 2001 bought the shares from Conrad Ferlaino. While the Juventus taceamong the countless reactions on social media there was that of the Minister of Sport Andrea Abodi. “I have seen, heard and reportedin compliance with the roles, for the appropriate checks e evaluations. For now I think it is correct that I stop here ”, she tweeted in the middle of the night without explaining to whom she asked the question of the prosecutor’s statements.