the Public Prosecutor’s Office is also investigating obstacles to surveillance – Corriere.it

Obstruction of supervisory functions. The Milan prosecutor’s office – according to several qualified sources – is also investigating this hypothesis of crime in the investigation into the sale of Milan by Elliott to RedBird on 31 August last for 1.2 billion. Until now we knew of a file, against unknown persons, for embezzlement. The further investigative thesis widens the scope of the investigations, entrusted to the special currency police unit of the Guardia di Finanza and coordinated by the deputy prosecutor Maurizio Romanelli with the prosecutors Giovanna Cavalleri and Giovanni Polizzi.

What the law says

very probable that from the beginning, i.e. from October when the complaint of Elliott’s former minority partners in Milan arrived at the prosecutor’s office (the Blue Skye of Salvatore Cerchione and Gianluca D’Avanzo), together with the embezzlement, the violation of article 2638 of the civil code had also been hypothesized. The obstacle to the exercise of the functions of the public supervisory authorities, punished with imprisonment from one to four years, is consummated when the economic, patrimonial and financial reality of the subjects subject to control is hidden from the Authority.

The documentation to the FIGC

But which authority? Which controlled entity? And who could have stood in the way? Having reiterated that for now it is only a question of hypotheses and that there are no suspects, the competent authority, not the only one but in any case the one most involved in the sale of AC Milan, the FIGC-Covisoc to which the documentation of the transaction and the registry office of the new owner have been sent. The controlled subject is AC Milan and the obligations of correct communication with the Authority are the responsibility of various subjects (administrators, general managers, managers in charge, statutory auditors, etc.) who represent the club and the owners. Then there are a number of professionals who themselves have anti-money laundering charges.

The exhibit and the Gdf

On January 26, the Gdf had made acquisitions of documents in various offices of professionals, including lawyers and notaries, who oversaw the sale. But it wasn’t the first time. In the complaint from which the investigation started, Blue Skye complains of damages of just over 100 million euros for loss of guarantee on the loan and an opacity in the corporate passages. Basically, Blue Skye denounced that in the sale of the club to RedBird, the “old” vehicle owner of AC Milan of which it had about 4% (Luxembourg-based Project Redblack), it waived a pledge on the shares of AC Milan itself and any guarantee of repayment of the loan granted while having its own creditors, including Blue Skye itself, to repay. Hence the configuration of an alleged embezzlement.

The litigation

In recent months, an Elliott spokesman had specified that after the announcement of the sale of AC Milan to RedBird, Blue Skye has launched a series of frivolous and vexatious disputes that are nothing more than an attempt to extract a value at which Blue Skye does not he has the right. Civil lawsuits on the same matter are pending in Luxembourg, the United States and in the civil court of Milan.