The deputy prosecutor Fabio De Pasquale filed the appeal to ask to overturn the sentence with which the court of Milan on 17 March last acquitted “Because the fact does not exist” all the defendants in the case Eni/Shell Nigeria, including the CEO Claudio Descalzi. Even the civil party, the Nigerian government, represented by the lawyer Lucio Lucia presented, again today, the deed of appeal. According to De Pasquale, the judges ignored the “complexity“Of a” great corruption “and analyzed the” affair as if it were one bagatellar history“. In the appeal, the adjunct does not save heavy criticism the motivations of the college, chaired by Marco Tremolada, which had just as harshly canceled the accusatory framework. And it defines the “arguments of the Court really thin” e “illogical“, Also speaking of“ serious devaluations ”of the evidence by the judges.
With the appeal, filed close to the expiry of the terms, the deputy prosecutor asked the court of appeal to ‘reform’ the sentence with which the Seventh Criminal Section of the Court, at the end of a three-year trial and with twists and turns that led to a profound rift between judges and prosecutors, sent the 15 defendants with the formula “because the fact does not exist”. For the college chaired by Trembling certain proof of the alleged corruption to obtain the concession of the exploration rights of the field Opl245.
For De Pasquale “they come ignored“By the judges” the nuances of behavior and the complexity of relationships, especially in one corrupt negotiation where there is a lot of money on the table, a lot of ‘sharks running around’ and behaviors based on complete tactics“. As stated in the appeal of 123 pages, “The great corruption is a game in which all the ‘players’ on the field want to get the maximum result and very often the different needs may not be entirely matching“. However, it continues, “the Court – writes the prosecutor – shows that it is ignoring this complexity and analyzes the story as if it were a bagatellar story ”. For De Pasquale, who brought Eni’s CEO to trial among others Claudio Descalzi and its predecessor Paolo Scaroni (acquitted like the other 13 defendants, including companies), on the Opl245 oil field there was “corruption”, an alleged maxi tangent gives over 1 billion dollars, “The kind of corruption mentioned in the UN Convention on Corruption in the Preamble the devastating danger“. And the prosecutor reconstructs what are, in his opinion, a series of “serious devaluations of documentary evidence” in the reasons for the sentence, which “essentially wiped out documentary evidence of great importance for the purposes of the affirmation from the material used for the decision the responsibility of the accused “. In the end, De Pasquale observes, the judges propose “as an alternative circumstantial reasoning, that there has been corruption, but all Nigerian“, Therefore without responsibility for the accused.
Even the civil party, in his act of appeal, asked for the conviction of the accused to justice, the compensation for damage to be liquidated in a civil trial and a provisional amount of 1 billion and 92 million dollars, amount of the alleged bribe that for the accusation would have been paid by Eni and Shell to end up in the pockets of Nigerian politicians with hypothesized relegations to some Italian and foreign managers and mediators. The Nigeria affair is one of those, together with the case of the reports of Piero Amara, at the center of the storm that is shaking not only the Milanese courthouse but the entire Italian judiciary, with inquiries opened, among other things, by the Public Prosecutor’s Brescia, from Csm and also from Ministry of Justice.
Eni “takes note of the decision of the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office and the civil party of the Republic of Nigeria to appeal against the acquittal with full formula pronounced by the Milan Court on 17 March 2021”. And, “while waiting to read the reasons for the appeal, it confirms its total extraneousness to the disputed facts and places the utmost confidence that the judiciary during the appeal can quickly confirm the conclusions reached in the first instance of judgment. Facts, however, subject to final assessment at second instance in another proceeding “.