There was a meeting with “high-caliber criminal and mafia” characters and it was the accused himself, Mauro Lauricella, son of the Kalsa boss Antonino “u scintilluni”, who admitted in an interception that he had “also used physical violence” to recover – on the mandate of the former Palermo captain, Fabrizio Miccoli – 12 thousand euros, also appropriating part of the sum. This is why the second section of the Supreme Court, last October 7, had no doubts in rejecting the appeal of “spark”, hitherto uncensored, thus making the 7-year sentence definitive that made him end up in prison for extortion aggravated by the mafia method.
The reasons for the decision of the college chaired by Geppino Rago (on the side of Giuseppe Sgadari) have just been filed. For Miccoli, however, the sentence of 3 and a half years remedied with the abbreviation has become definitive last Tuesday: the player turned up the next day in the Rovigo prison, where he will serve his sentence.
Lauricella, as has now been sanctioned by the judges, in 2010 had been commissioned by Miccoli to recover a sum that Graffagnini owed to Giorgio Gasparini, a former Palermo physiotherapist and his partner in the management of the “Paparazzi” disco in Isola delle Femmine. Typically mafia methods were used to get the money delivered. In the first instance, however, the court chaired by Bruno Fasciana had questioned this reconstruction, deciding to sentence Lauricella to one year for aggravated private violence. Sentence then completely overturned on appeal and confirmed by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in considering the theses of Lauricella’s defense unfounded, points out that “the Court of Appeal made specific reference, in silence, to two intercepted conversations (one of 13 February 2011 and the other of 30 March of 2011) in which it was the defendant himself who reported to the offended person that he had pocketed sums to be delivered to Gasparini, amounting to at least 10 thousand euros, confiding to his mother that he had retained 4 thousand euros for himself “.
Furthermore, “with regard to the existence of the threat (…) the Court underlined that from an intercepted conversation it emerged, through the mouth of the same accused, that in one of the preliminary meetings to the decisive meeting which took place in the back room of a Kalsa restaurant, he had also used physical violence against Graffagnini aimed at obtaining payment for the matter of interest “.
For the Cassation “in addition to the threats and violence, Lauricella does not take into account (…) the circumstance, unanimously reported by the offended person Graffagnini, by an eyewitness and by a dialogue between himself and Miccoli, according to which at the meeting of the Kalsa they were present some characters of high caliber criminal and mafia (‘big people’), one of whom, not identified with certainty, had intervened to resolve the matter by expressly referring to the fact that he was in that place as he was called by the accused (and not by others) and by reason of his friendship with the latter’s father, a subject belonging peacefully to the mafia association Cosa Nostra at that time fugitive. meeting, the fact that the accused had purposely built, in the specific environmental situation of reference, a ‘mafia context’, relying on it to obtain the desired result from the victim and the other debtors, thus using, not too implicitly, the mafia method sanctioned by the aggravating circumstance “.
The judges then recall that “in point of law the constitutive threat of the crime of extortion can also be manifested implicitly, it being only necessary that it be capable of instilling fear and coercing the will of the taxable person, in relation to the concrete circumstances, to personality of the agent, the subjective conditions of the victim and the environmental conditions in which he operates “. And “by ‘environmental’ extortion we mean that particular form of extortion, which is perpetrated by subjects known to be part of dangerous criminal groups who dominate a given territory and which is immediately perceived by the inhabitants of that area as concrete and of certain implementation, given that the criminal force of the association to which the agent belongs, even when implemented with cryptic language and gestures, provided that these are capable of instilling fear and coercing the victim’s will “.
Then, the judges conclude, “the factual circumstance, deemed proven, that the applicant had withheld a sum of money for himself, thus obtaining a personal profit against the creditor’s reasons and not on his mandate, at the same time excludes the possibility of to qualify the fact differently in terms of private violence or the arbitrary exercise of one’s own reasons “. Hence the confirmation of the appeal sentence.