The “Trani System” had moved to Taranto, coming to touch various proceedings concerning theIlva. The “Trani System”, in fact, it was the “Capristo System”: a spider’s web of relationships which held together magistrates, lawyers, consultants and came to lick top-level politicians to open “Illegitimate investigations” or ‘soften’ the proceedings in exchange for favorite and attempts to appointment. A “Clearance of functions” which sees in the center – according to the reconstruction from power of attorney, endorsed by the investigating judge of the Lucanian court Antonello Amodeo – the former prosecutor of Trani and Taranto, Carlo Maria Capristo, Eni’s former lawyer, Piero Amara, at the center of numerous investigations including the one on the alleged “Lodge Hungary”, the policeman Filippo Paradiso, the lawyer Giacomo Ragno e Nicola Nicoletti, partner of Pwc and Ilva’s consultant in extraordinary administration. Among the accusations addressed to the main suspects – 12 in all – by the offices headed by Francesco Curcio also that of having, in exchange for favors, fixed (or attempted to fix) proceedings concerning the former Ilva of Taranto, including released from seizures of blast furnaces after death of two workers.
Four arrests, twelve suspects – This is the heart of the investigation of the power of attorney who brought Amara and Paradiso to jail, already serving in the offices of direct collaboration of the various undersecretaries to the Prime Minister, with Prodi, as with Berlusconi, and at the Ministry of the Interior, as a collaborator of the secretariat of Matteo Piantedosi, then head of cabinet of Matteo Salvini, and then ended up in the secretariat of Carlo Sibilia. Instead, house arrest for Ragno, already sentenced to 2 years and 8 months in the survey on “Trani System” which concerned the pm Antonio Savasta e Michele Nardi, and for Nicoletti. The investigating judge instead ordered theresidence obligation for Capristo, already arrested a May 2020 as part of another investigation and then returned free while he is a process. The former prosecutor of Trani is also being investigated in the investigation Antonio Savasta, the former investigating judge Michele Nardi (convicted of corruption in judicial acts in another investigation and for which the investigating judge rejected the precautionary measure requested by the prosecutor), the entrepreneur Flavio D’Introno, the carabiniere Martino Marancia, the consultant Massimiliano Soave e Franco Balducci. In various ways, corruption in judicial acts, corruption in the exercise of functions, corruption for acts contrary to official duties, extortion, abuse of office and aiding and abetting are contested.
“Amara corrupted, Capristo sold off his function” – Amara, in the opinion of the prosecutor, was “Active subject” of the corruption in judicial acts “Both in Trani and in Taranto”, while Capristo has “Sold permanently” to Amara his “judicial function”. Paradiso, on the other hand, had the role of “intermediary” on “behalf and in the interest” of Amara vis-à-vis the former prosecutor. According to the approach of the investigators, the alleged “Enslavement” of Capristo stemmed from the attempt to obtain favorite through the two, which were produced in an “incessant activity of recommendation, persuasion, solicitation carried out ”in his favor on“ members of the Csm (known to them directly or indirectly) and / or on subjects deemed capable of influencing the latter “when the former magistrate was interested in vacant management positions. Among these, there would be the Prosecutor General of Florence and that of Taranto. In return, again according to the accusation, Capristo on the one hand tried to “Credit” Amara as a lawyer of Eni and on the other hand it softened the attorney’s positions in the proceedings in which Amara was involved as a consultant.
What did Capristo do – According to the investigators, among the many accusations, Capristo “ordered the conduct of investigations, too thorough ed unusual, if not illegitimate (including enforcement and acquisition of records) “on the basis of a exhibited anonymously had Amara delivered. The investigators were suspicious of the anomalous methods of receiving a complaint, “delivered by hand, despite being anomalous, directly to the office of receipt of documents” of the Prosecutor of Trani ”Without showing who had delivered it and then regularly registered, assigned and registered “. Despite the “anonymous nature of the complaint”, according to the precautionary custody order, Capristo urged the co-delegated magistrates “on several occasions to carry out further investigative investigations “ that “they were functional to the interests of Piero Amara who had sent the complaints and who needed to strengthen and ‘dress’ the thesis of the conspiracy against Eni’s CEO De Scalzi ”. Capristo, moreover, “accepted one interlocution absolutely improper and anomalous “with Amara, on the basis of the anonymous complaints, although the name of the Sicilian lawyer did not appear in any way nor was” formally appointed by a legitimate trial subject “. It follows, according to the power of attorney of Potenza and according to the Finance police, that the “Complacent conduct” it allowed Amara to “propose and highlight itself at Eni in a way like landmark and through to the judicial authority in that specific matter and, on the other hand, as a lawyer deserving of new and further well-paid assignments “.
Ilva, the “trait-union” of the Pwc shareholder – Nicoletti, partner of Pwc and external consultant of Ilva in As, according to the indictment, on the one hand “had supported the ‘sponsorship’ activity” of the former prosecutor and on the other “saw recognized by the management of the Taranto prosecutor from part of Capristo a particular e favorable attention to the needs of Ilva in As ”which, in turn,“ was also transformed into further benefit, this of a personal nature “because” as a consultant to extraordinary directors and as trait-union (together with Amara, who by Nicoletti himself had been proposed to the Extraordinary Administration as a lawyer to be hired as he was on excellent terms with Capristo) between the Extraordinary Administration and the Taranto prosecutor’s office, was accredited as indispensable subject to manage the complex relationships with the judicial authority of Taranto and therefore acquired further titles to strengthen his own professional rise in the Taranto steelworks “.
That rejected plea bargain – The investigation had been partially anticipated last June by Ilfattoquotidiano.it in a long reconstruction of what happened in recent years in the context of a proceeding on the former Ilva. The investigation revolves around the choice of Amara as an advisor to the legal structure of Ilva in As and participates in the so-called “negotiation” with the power of attorney to achieve that plea bargain than a few years earlier, the pool of magistrates then led by Franco Sebastio, had rejected. Among the accusations reported in the indictment formulated by the prosecutor there is also that in fact the legal staff of Ilva raises the stakes by offering the payment of a fine of 3 million euros, 8 months of judicial commissioner e 241 million euros of confiscation (instead of the 9 proposed in the first instance) as a profit from the crime to be allocated to quenching and tempering of the iron and steel plant of Taranto. But the judges of the Assize Court considered “the penalties agreed with the representatives of the public prosecution” are “extremely inadequate and in no way responding to dutiful canons of proportionality with respect to extreme severity of the disputed facts “.