Milan. The adjunct Fabio De Pasquale does not intend to give up. In the midst of the storm that is affecting the (former) glorious Prosecutor of Milan and the troubles that see him, together with the prosecutor Sergio Spadaro, investigated in Brescia and – it would seem – subject to disciplinary investigation by the pg of Cassation files the appeal against the Eni-Nigeria ruling. Just the process that brought him the worst trouble a toga can have. De Pasquale asks to overturn the decision of the Court which on 17 March acquitted, “because the fact does not exist”, all 15 defendants for the alleged Eni maxi bribe. Among the defendants, the CEO Claudio De Scalzi and his predecessor Paolo Scaroni. The civil party, the Nigerian government represented by the lawyer Lucio Lucia, also appealed.
The filing of the appeal comes close to the deadline. The deputy prosecutor wrote 123 pages to contest, point by point, the motivations of the Seventh Criminal Section, chaired by judge Marco Tremolada. For the Court, the evidence of the alleged corruption of the oil giant to obtain concessions on the Opl245 field has not been obtained. Yet De Pasquale would have much more to devote himself to, to defend himself against the accusations of the Brescia Public Prosecutor’s Office, which investigates him for refusal of official documents precisely because he would have kept fundamental evidence for himself in favor of the defendants in the later lost trial. Not only. He would have used selectively the minutes of Piero Amara, in other respects by the same Prosecutor deemed not worthy of further study, to denounce Judge Tremolada (later filed) in Brescia as “approachable” by the defense. For the affair, which caused an unprecedented schism in the Prosecutor’s Office, the Pg of Cassation could ask the CSM to expel him from Milan, as he has already done for the prosecutor Paolo Storari, whose hearing is set for today. If this were not enough, it emerged that in March 2020 in a very critical document 27 pm Milanese underlined that the Department of International Affairs and Transnational Economic Crimes, headed by De Pasquale, “deserved” an “analytical illustration of the attributions, the weight, the trend of work flows and results “, while” nothing is possible to understand “from the numbers provided on the activity of the pool.
In essence, in the appeal, the adjunct argues that the judges of the Seventh have treated the case “as if it were a bagatellar story”. For De Pasquale, the Court brings “really thin” and “illogical” arguments, with “serious devaluations” of the evidence and in certain passages it provides a “one-dimensional reconstruction”. On the witness-accused Vincenzo Armanna, whom the judges declare “unreliable”, animated “by blackmailing intentions” and author of “generic, contradictory and unverified” statements, the adjunct reiterates that “much of his story is not only true , but peacefully true ». And that the Court uses a ploy to discredit him: in the case of “circumstances on which Armanna has been fully found” it happens that “he affirms that the circumstance is true but has its own legitimate explanation, that is, that it is not relevant, or that it is partially true “. On the video, “disruptive” for the judges, in which Armanna claims he wants to tarnish the company and that the prosecutors – it is the Court’s accusation – have kept hidden: De Pasquale declares that the Court itself had decided not to admit it, because he was part of another ongoing investigation (on the Eni “conspiracy”); that the defenders already knew its content; that the slanderous intent of the witness is not deduced from the video, but has its origin in the “subjective perception of the judge”. Video recording, he concludes, cannot become “the deadly weapon that destroys an entire process”. Finally, Eni informs that “it confirms its total extraneousness with respect to the disputed facts and places the utmost confidence that the judiciary on appeal can quickly confirm the conclusions reached in the first instance”.