Here are the reasons for the sentence for Juventus linked to the capital gains case and the reactions on the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which imposed a 15-point penalty on the club

In the new facts that led to the reopening of the sporting process for capital gains, “there is no specific demonstrative evidence for other companies”. And then: «As regards the sanction – the reasons continue -, the Court took into account the particular seriousness and the repeated and prolonged nature of the violation and the same intensity and diffusion of awareness of the situation in the talks between the managers of FC Juventus SpA »
This is what emerges – ANSA learns – from the reasons for the sentence, which are about to be published, of the Federal Court of Appeal which inflicted 15 penalty points on Juve and acquitted the other clubs. The sporting judges in fact considered that “in the new facts that have arisen there is no specific demonstrative evidence that allows to support the accusation and even less does it seem possible to argue that there has been a systematic alteration of several balance sheets”.
The Federal Court of Appeal of the FIGC – ANSA learns – has admitted the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office for revocation, it is explained in the reasons that are about to be published, of the capital gains trial for Juventus, “faced with a radically different picture of the facts for the impressive amount of documents received from the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Turin which highlighted the intentionality underlying the alteration of the transfer operations and the relative values».

No involvement for other clubs

«In the documentation acquired by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, unlike what happened for FC Juventus spa, there is no specific demonstrative evidence that would allow the accusation against the companies to be effectively supported UC Sampdoria, FC Pro Vercelli 1892, Genoa CFC, Parma Calcio 1913, Pisa Sporting Club, Empoli FC, Novara Calcio and Delfino Pescara 1936. And even less does it seem possible to argue that there has been (as claimed in the referral) a systematic alteration of several financial statements”. Thus, in the reasons for the sentence, the FIGC prosecutor explains why only Juventus was sanctioned. “The interceptions, the manuscripts, the documentation acquired by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Turin do not directly involve these companies”, reads the motivations of the prosecutor who then adds: “There cannot be any systematic nature to be contested in a single operation (first consideration). A conviction by Parma, Novara and Pescara for mere “contact” with FC Juventus SpA would be unjustified (second consideration) in the absence of objective evidence of the violation, not seen from the side of FC Juventus SpA, but precisely from that of the deferred parties discussed here Evidence that, precisely with regard to the aforementioned companies, it cannot be found in the documentation produced by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office. All this without considering the relevance for FC Juventus SpA alone of the international accounting standards indicated by Consob, which do not find application (in the same terms) for unlisted Italian companies. The suspicion that may possibly be inferred with regard to and the aforementioned companies is not sufficient to determine a conviction. All the more in reference to disputes which in the appeal for revocation appear substantially abandoned by the federal prosecutor. We refer to the exchanges of players directly between companies other than FC Juventus SpA, in particular the direct exchanges between Pescara and Parma or between Sampdoria and Chievo Verona (the latter even ousted from the FIGC judgement), which had originally been included in the referral as head of incrimination, and which are then no longer cited in the appeal for revocation, nor further supported by documents”.

The reactions

«It’s difficult to think that Juventus is solely responsible for a capital gains system which in reality, unfortunately, is widespread not only in Italy but internationally. To date it is difficult to understand, given that capital gains generally split in two – comments the CEO of Lega Serie A, Louis DeSiervo –. We are part of a system and we must respect all its rules, including the bodies that judge it. We will read the reasons carefully before making a judgement. I don’t think the problem is the structure of sports justice but rather a system of rules. My invitation is to Fifa to identify principles to be applied in a certain way, to be explained to the entire public. When there are rules, they can be respected by everyone in a clear way ».