Juventus, why the prosecutor agrees with the defense and what is happening now to the Guarantee Board – Corriere.it

ROME Two and a half minutes of prosecution’s argument against two and a half hours of defense arguments. But he’s the attorney general of sports Hugh Taucerwhich in the Juventus appeal on the capital gains case before the Coni guarantee college represents precisely the accusation, to give the title of the day.

If in fact it was taken for granted that the defenses would ask for the annulment tout court of the sentence which condemned Juventus to -15 for “the fraudulent system of fictitious capital gains” (or alternatively the annulment with postponement) on the basis of the nine reasons filed in the appeal (“a sentence full of errors, basic violations of sporting justice , a ship adrift» summarizes the lawyer Maurizio Bellacosa, after which the lawyers Nino Paolantonio, Angelo Clarizia, Davide Sangiorgio, Nicola Apa, Flavia Tortorella spoke in depth on specific points), surprisingly Taucer shared one of the points supported by the club , that is, what concerns the «lack» of motivation of the 15 penalty points inflicted on the club for violation of article 4 (the one that judges the lack of sporting loyalty). And he hopes that it will refer “to a new judgment”, therefore that it will return to the federal Court of Appeal, “for the remodulation of the points”.

The Board of Guarantee (chaired by Gabriella Palmieri Sandulli and made up of joint sections with the section presidents Vito Branca, Attilio Zimatore, Massimo Zaccheo and Dante D’Alessio) was updated yesterday at 19: the operative part of the sentence can arrive within five days but it is expected between today and tomorrow. Naturally it is not certain that the College follows the indications of the prosecutor, but it is still a nice assist provided to Juventus.

actually that, in a judgment of legitimacy (this, let us remember, is the sphere in which the guarantee college operates), the attorney general accepting some points of law of the counterparty is not so rare. What is more anomalous (or at least distant from the practice supported in the past) is that in this proceeding there was no Federation to defend its sentence. It was a decision by the president Gabriele Gravina who did not consider setting himself up to leave the political organ out of merely matters of law, given that the stability of the “system” is not jeopardized (the capital gains were not considered indispensable to the entry of Juventus to the championship). The impression is that the FIGC did not want to be involved precisely in the definition of the -15 calculation. Which is exactly the point on which Taucer expresses his perplexities, who instead for the rest confirms the approach of the federal prosecutor Chiné, whose accusatory system he defends, therefore (it is assumed because it has not been argued) also the request for revocation of the two previous acquittals and compliance with the procedural times (which for the defense would instead have been anticipated by the famous Covisoc note). In short, eight out of nine points of the defenses were rejected by the prosecution, minus one.

«From the point of view of the behavior of the federal prosecution – Taucer begins in fact – I have no observations that can be made. The work of the federal prosecutor’s office was corrected and shared in the judgment by the Court of Appeal. From this point of view I would like to state that the opposing party’s arguments do not hit the point, indeed some of these have entered into the merits and I would consider confirming the accusatory hypothesis. And I am therefore pronouncing for the rejection of the requests of Juve’s lawyers. With respect to the application of Article 4 to societyI fear that, on the lack of motivation regarding the points, there is a principle of validity of the defenses and I hope that it will be evaluated in a new judgment”.

And now what happens? If the Board decides to follow the prosecutor’s suggestion (which, as mentioned, is not taken for granted, it can also confirm the -15) it can cancel the sentence without postponement, and therefore the 15 points would be definitively returned to Juventus, or may cancel by deferring to the Court of Appeal which should remodel the -15, or even just confirm them but justify them better (not very accredited hypothesis). In the meantime, however, they would be temporarily returned to Juventus, with a confusing effect for a ranking that keeps changing. In order not to think that the second trend, the one concerning salary maneuvers and capital gains bis, is only in the phase of the conclusion of the investigation. Which in turn, in theory, can lead to point penalties. The confusion is total under the sky.