On the sporting front, the hearing of the College of Guarantee is expected on -15 and at the end of the month the referrals are expected for the investigation on salaries and partnerships. Then there is the investigation by UEFA and the preliminary hearing of the criminal trial on 27 March
The procedural scenarios for Juve are as known different. From a sporting point of view, the next appointment will be with the Coni guarantee college between the end of March and the beginning of April. This is the third degree of the capital gains trial, for the appeal (a 100-page file with nine key points) of the bianconeri against the sentence of 20 January of the Federal Court of Appeal which sanctioned the club with 15 penalty points and heavy infliction inhibitions to its leaders. The Panel cannot express itself on the merits but only assess the existence of procedural defects. At the end of the hearing, he therefore has the right to reject the appeal by confirming the 15 points, refer everything back to the Court of Appeal for a new judgment (it would be the third) or accept the appeal and annul the sentence. One of the points of the appeal referred to the notorious “Covisoc paper”, the one also requested by the lawyers of Paratici and Cherubini, both referred, who had made and won the appeal to the Tar for having it. The card has been delivered, as well as the so-called “second Covisoc card” immediately preceding it, but in both there do not seem to be the elements necessary to bring forward the date on which the federal prosecutor became aware of the possible Juventus crimes, as claimed by the defense which thus aimed to bring out a flaw on procedural times that risked invalidating the entire process.
Salary maneuvers
—
Then there is the second sporting trial, the one linked to the two salary maneuvers and suspicious partnerships. Here we are still in the preliminary investigation phase, extended by Chiné’s double request for an extension which allows him to proceed with any (but obviously probable) referrals at the end of the month. The second extension was requested in the light of a further thousand pages that the Public Prosecutor’s Office recently received from the Turin prosecutors who are dealing with the Prisma investigation.
The Uefa
—
Remaining in the sports arena, in December UEFA announced the opening of its own investigation. The focus is “on the alleged financial violations recently made public following the proceeding conducted by Consob and the Turin public prosecutor’s office”, which risk violating the settlement agreement signed in the summer with Juve on the basis of financial information which then ended up under the lens of the detectives. UEFA had communicated that “if new and material facts emerge or become known, the First Section reserves the right to terminate the settlement agreement, take any legal action it deems appropriate and impose disciplinary measures in accordance with the applicable UEFA Rules of Procedure” . The possible sanctions range from a warning to the revocation of a trophy, the most plausible scenarios concern economic measures such as a fine and the withholding of proceeds deriving from UEFA competitions, to more technical measures such as restrictions on the registration of list A players for a European competition , up to disqualification for the current year or future exclusion from UEFA events. UEFA’s idea is to wait for the progress of the Italian investigations, sporting and otherwise, to pronounce itself at the end of this season.
Prisma
—
Finally there is the criminal investigation, the famous “Prisma” which started it all. The preliminary hearing is scheduled for 27 March, with the Juventus club and the other 12 suspects for whom indictment has been requested, including former president Andrea Agnelli, Pavel Nedved, Maurizio Arrivabene, Fabio Paratici and the ‘lawyer Cesare Gabasio who will find themselves facing the investigating judge Marco Picco. The accusations made by the magistrates – the deputy Marco Gianoglio, Mario Bendoni and Ciro Santoriello – range from market manipulation to false corporate communications, from obstructing the exercise of supervisory functions to issuing false invoices.
14 March – 17:00
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED
