Justice. Conviction for abuse, injury, sexual assault-claim of victim accepted
PRESS RELEASE
CONVICTION FOR ABUSE, INJURY, SEXUAL ASSAULT AND ROBBERY: CLAIM OF VICTIM ACCEPTED
D.P. sentenced to 9 years and 6 months imprisonment for serious and protracted abuse
Catania, 13 September 2024 - After more than ten years of abuse and suffering, justice has finally been done for D.C., a victim of ill-treatment, injuries, sexual violence and robbery by her partner, D.P. On Thursday 12 September, the Court of Catania, Criminal Section IV, recognised as proven the crimes reported by the woman in December 2021, sentencing the defendant to 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment and compensation for damages in favour of the victim.
Represented by lawyer Stefano Francesco Pipitone, Mrs. D.C. reconstructed in court the decade of violence suffered by her so-called ‘ bossy partner’, describing in detail the episodes of ill-treatment and violence. The complaint originated from the last serious episode of violence, which took place on 26 December 2021, during which, following an argument that had arisen for trivial reasons and in the presence of her minor son, D.P. had immobilised and assaulted the woman, repeatedly hitting her on the head with a mobile phone, causing her serious injuries and copious bleeding.
That dramatic episode marked the turning point for the victim, who, after fleeing to the emergency room, found the courage to denounce years of abuse, humiliation and harassment suffered, filing a complaint with the Carabinieri of San Gregorio di Catania (CT).
After a long and complex process, consisting of 20 hearings, the Court collected documentary evidence and testimonies that confirmed the victim's account. In light of this evidence, the court found D.P. guilty beyond reasonable doubt on all four counts.
In addition to the prison sentence, the defendant was sentenced to perpetual disqualification from public office, from assuming any role in the field of guardianship, curatorship or support administration, as well as from exercising functions in public or private institutions or facilities attended by minors. He was also banned from approaching places frequented by minors for one year and obliged to constantly inform the authorities about his residence and any movements.
The ruling is an important signal for all victims of domestic violence, confirming that despite lengthy proceedings, justice can be achieved.
Hate speech. Freedom of expression
The limits of freedom of expression
Freedom of expression or total verbal disrespect?
Article 21 of the italian Constitution recognises freedom of expression of thought as a fundamental and inviolable right and guarantees its exercise through any means of communication.
The protection of the free expression of thought does not only cover the profile of the disclosure of one's opinions, but also includes the right to information and criticism.
Can we really consider ourselves entitled to say whatever we want and think on the web and social media?
The answer is negative.
Freedom of thought expression must not, in any way, lead to hostile, discriminatory and intolerance-based outbursts.
Unfortunately, in the age of the internet and 'keyboard lions' this is what happens more and more frequently, undermining the fundamental values of society.
Care must be taken.
It is wrong to think that there is no responsibility attached to words posted on the web.
An outburst on the internet can be very costly.
WHAT IS HATE SPEECH?
Hate speech is a specific form of communication expressed in insulting ways of expressing thoughts. Spread and repeated through the Internet, such forms of expression have the effect of:
- feeding prejudices
- spreading and consolidating stereotypes;
- reinforcing the hostility of certain groups of people towards other groups with different characteristics. Minority groups are usually the victims. But today we are witnessing a phenomenon of the opposite sign.
WHAT FORMS OF PROTECTION DOES THE LEGAL SYSTEM RECOGNISE?
The phenomenon of hate speech has increased exponentially over the years.
Although there is still no specific regulation on the subject, hate speech can integrate several crimes in Italy.
Pending a specific regulation, on which the EU is working, the phenomenon of hate speech, when it offends the reputation and honour of a person, constitutes the criminal offence of defamation, punishable in Italy by Article 595 of the Criminal Code with imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to 1,032 euro.
If the defamation relates to a specific fact, a specific aggravating circumstance applies, which carries a penalty of imprisonment of up to two years.
But beware, if the offence is carried out by means of the press or any other means of publicity, such as websites or social media, then the penalty is imprisonment of six months to three years.
More serious than simple online hatred is the offence of threatening, punishable under Article 612 of the criminal code by a fine of up to 1,032 euro. If the threat is aggravated, the penalty is more severe, with imprisonment of up to one year. This also applies if the threat is made through any digital channel.
On the other hand, oppressive and continuous behaviour such as telephone calls, text messages, e-mails, comments on social networks or letters can be brought under the offence of stalking, punishable under Italian law in Article 612 bis of the Criminal Code, with penalties ranging from six months to five years imprisonment.
Finally, conduct such as simple harassment is still punishable under Article 660 of the Criminal Code, with imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to EUR 516.
Conclusions
Although the web is a tool for knowledge and debate, it can very easily turn into a trap of dangers if not used responsibly.
Freedom of manifestation of thought is in fact not equivalent to freedom of denigration, although sometimes the line between the two is thin.
It must be borne in mind that virtual reality is also an actual dimension and, as such, it is possible to incur criminal liability. Each action can generate legal consequences and affect the personal and private life of others.
How can one contribute to reducing this phenomenon? It is essential to educate and raise awareness of respect, dignity, diversity and constructive dialogue based on a culture of universal values.
Hate speech can only be fought with consciousness.
article written by Elena Stracquadaini
(student Law Department of Catania)
Whistleblowing in Italy: What is it? Obligations and Impact on Transparency
Born as a Beacon for Transparency and Integrity in the Workplace.
New Obligations for Companies
Updated as of May 20, 2023
Introduction
Whistleblowing is a system for reporting internal misconduct that is increasingly spreading in Italy and around the world. In this article, we will explore what whistleblowing is, when it is mandatory for companies, and how it contributes to transparency and integrity in the workplace.
Definition and Types
The term "whistleblowing" derives from the phrase "to blow the whistle" and refers to the practice of reporting abuses and illegal practices within the organization where one works. There are two main types of whistleblowing: internal and external. In internal whistleblowing, employees report misconduct using internal channels within the company, while in external whistleblowing, reports are made to competent authorities or disclosed publicly through social media or the press.
Legislation and Protection
In Italy, whistleblowing regulations were introduced with the Anti-Corruption Law 190/2012, which initially applied only to public employees. Subsequently, Law 179/2017 extended the regulations to the private sector. The implementation of the EU Directive 2019/1937 on the protection of whistleblowers further strengthened the protection of whistleblowers. The directive requires Member States to introduce adequate rules to protect both public and private whistleblowers and harmonize the treatment of whistleblowers across Europe.
On December 9, 2022, the Council of Ministers, through Decree 24/2023, transposed the European Directive on the protection of whistleblowers by approving the "Legislative Decree implementing Directive (EU) 2019/1937." The EU mandated Member States to introduce adequate rules for the protection of public and private whistleblowers. The Directive expands the concept of a "reporting person" (whistleblower) and now includes not only public or private employees but also collaborators, consultants, freelancers, workers on probation, interns, and others. Private whistleblowers, in addition to internal reporting channels, must have access to external reporting channels (to be established at ANAC) or make a public disclosure or report to the judicial authorities.
Lastly, to make the system more effective, administrative fines (ranging from €5,000 to €50,000, directly applicable by ANAC) are provided in case retaliation is proven, if the user's report has been obstructed, or if reporting channels have not been established.
The introduction of the whistleblowing obligation in the private sector has required a modification
of the disciplinary system regarding the administrative liability of entities, Legislative Decree 231/2001. The MOGs (Models of Organization, Management, and Control) must include the obligation to establish one or more channels for reporting potentially illicit conduct under the mentioned decree.
In Italy, a series of obligations have been imposed to make the protection of whistleblowers concrete and effective. Starting from July 2023, it is mandatory for all companies with more than 250 employees, regardless of whether they adopt an Organizational Model pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 231/2001, to establish a specific and confidential online channel for submitting reports. From December 17, 2023, companies with 50 to 249 employees must also have a dedicated reporting channel.
Impact of Whistleblowing
Whistleblowing plays a fundamental role in promoting transparency, integrity, and accountability within organizations. Reports of abuses help expose misconduct, protect public interests, and can lead to regulatory and policy changes. Furthermore, whistleblowing promotes the responsibility and accountability of organizations and improves organizational culture by fostering integrity and preventing future abuses. Properly managing whistleblower reports allows companies to preserve their reputation and restore stakeholder trust.
Famous Examples of Whistleblowing in Italy and Worldwide
In Italy, several significant cases of whistleblowing have raised important issues regarding transparency and integrity in the workplace. One of the most well-known cases is that of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, where a whistleblower reported illicit financial operations. Another significant case concerns the healthcare sector, with whistleblowing regarding fraud in the national healthcare system. Internationally, the most famous example is that of Edward Snowden, who revealed the global surveillance practices of the NSA. Another historic case is that of Mark Felt, known as "Deep Throat," who provided key information during the Watergate scandal in the United States.
Conclusions
Whistleblowing is becoming increasingly relevant in Italy and worldwide as it contributes to the promotion of transparency and integrity within organizations. Italian legislation and European regulations are enhancing whistleblower protection and creating a favorable environment for reporting misconduct. However, it is important for companies to develop effective procedures for managing whistleblower reports and protecting whistleblowers from retaliation. Only through a robust system and a culture of openness and accountability can the positive impact of whistleblowing be maximized, fostering a more ethical and transparent work environment.
Contribution by Dr. Alessandro Gazzano from the Catania Bar Association
Responsibility 231 and Tax Crimes. Risks for the Board of Directors without Delegations
Responsibility of the Board of Directors
The Supreme Court tightens the noose on board members without delegations.
Even board members are at risk of liability for tax offenses and preventive seizure of assets.
The expansion of tax crimes in the list of offenses that give rise to the liability of entities (companies) under Legislative Decree no. 231/2001 has multiplied (tripled) the sanctioning response of the State in case of tax crimes (tax penalty for the company, offense for the administrator, 231 violation for the company). The Supreme Court has recently intervened on tax offenses with two strict interpretations of the legislation. Among the legal principles introduced, it is worth noting the important distinction between companies governed by boards of directors with or without delegations. This information is significant and directly influences the chain of responsibility for anyone sitting on a board of directors.
1. According to a recent ruling (Supreme Court, Criminal Section 3, Sentence No. 11087087, 28.03.2022), if a specific management act does not fall within the expressly delegated powers, all board members are liable for the offenses, burdened with joint liability for the offenses deliberated or committed by the board of directors. The only exception is if a dissenting board member expresses their opinion in contrast on record. Only in the case of specific delegations to one or more directors will the liability be confined to their legal sphere. The Court anchored its decision to the interpretation of Article 2392 of the Civil Code, which states that administrators within joint-stock companies assume a position of guarantee, resulting in joint liability towards the company for damages arising from non-compliance with the duties imposed by law or by the bylaws. The only exception is for attributions specifically assigned to an executive committee or specifically assigned to one or more individuals (Article 2381, paragraph 2, Civil Code). In this case, within the Board of Directors of a Consortium, no delegations had been assigned to any of the directors. The Supreme Court first reiterated the reduction of burdens and responsibilities for directors without delegations (resulting from the 2003 reform), who no longer have a general duty of oversight over the overall management but are replaced by the obligation to act in an informed manner and gather information. With this premise, the Court specified how this regime only applies in the presence of delegated matters, either to the executive committee or to one or more directors. In the absence of delegations to any of the members of the board of directors (in this case, regarding tax-fiscal obligations), it must be assumed that joint liability for offenses deliberated or committed by the board of directors falls on all the directors, with each of them being jointly responsible.
But the Court went further. When deciding on the legitimacy of a preventive seizure ordered on the "primary residence" of a board member, it affirmed that the limits on real estate expropriation provided for the tax authorities (Revenue Agency) for tax debts do not apply to tax offenses (Presidential Decree no. 602 of 29.09.1973, Article 76, paragraph 1, letter a); Article 52, paragraph 1, letter g), Legislative Decree no. 69 of 21.06.2013). Therefore, there are no limits on the adoption of criminal confiscation, direct or equivalent, nor on the preventive seizure aimed at it (Supreme Court, Criminal Section, Sentence No. 8995, 07.11.2019, Rv. 278275-01; cf.: Supreme Court, Criminal Section, Sentence No. 30342, 16.06.2021, Rossi, Rv. 282022-01).
Indeed, the object of confiscation is the proceeds of the crime and not the debt to the tax authorities. These two concepts are distinct. The proceeds of crimes related to tax evasion, (such as through false or fraudulent declarations or non-payment), can be subject to preventive seizure for the purpose of confiscation. It consists of the economic savings resulting from diverting the evaded amounts from their intended tax destination and does not include the penalties imposed as a result of the debt assessment, which represent the cost of the crime itself. Furthermore, it does not include the interest accrued in favor of the state. On the other hand, the debt to the tax authorities always includes the original tax debt, interest, and penalties.
2. Here is another recent court ruling on tax crimes. In this case (Supreme Court, Criminal Section, Sentence No. 11086, 28.03.2022), the recipient of the preventive seizure measure was the de facto administrator of a company that was placed under extraordinary administration.
In summary, the public prosecutor had requested the preventive seizure of the administrator's assets. Meanwhile, the OMISSIS s.r.l. company was undergoing an extraordinary administration procedure. After declaring insolvency, the special administrator found approximately 400,000 euros in the company's coffers, which represented the down payment on the purchase price made by the prospective buyer of part of the company's assets. Before the start of the procedure, the special administrator found either negative or negligible balances in the company's bank accounts, excluding the initial down payment. Based on this premise, it was concluded that the amount found in the company's coffers was not related to or attributable to the disputed omissive tax crime's proceeds. These funds were generated after the commission of the crime. Consequently, the Court of Review deemed that the proceeds of the tax crime were not traceable in the company's coffers and thus justified the equivalent seizure against the offender, namely the administrator of the company.
As known, in tax crimes, the proceeds are not constituted by an increase in assets but rather by a failure to decrease, by a saving of expenses (taxes). Therefore, the funds that entered the company's coffers after the commission of the crime cannot be subject to direct confiscation. Additionally, the Court made another important consideration. The extraordinary administration procedure, unlike "ordinary" insolvency procedures (bankruptcy and preventive arrangement), is a "rescue procedure" aimed at protecting productive units, maintaining employment levels, and restoring and restructuring the company. Consequently, the Court concluded that the preventive seizure in penal-tax matters concerning extraordinary administration should be different from insolvency procedures, as the principle of seizure's precedence over the assets under special administration does not apply. In the specific case, the precedence of seizure did not apply to the sum of 400,000 euros found in the coffers after the start of the procedure.
As reiterated, the money that flowed into the accounts after the commission of the crime (including on an account opened by the special administration) cannot constitute the proceeds of the tax crime, which consists of the tax savings resulting from the non-payment. Therefore, the preventive seizure for equivalent confiscation of the administrator's assets was considered legitimate. Moreover, the Court deemed the confiscation measure applied to the personal assets of the individual (the administrator) for a crime (such as tax crime) committed for the benefit of a different legal entity, namely the company, as lawful. The impossibility of directly executing confiscation against the legal entity is thus considered a prerequisite for the operability of the equivalent confiscation against the individual who did not benefit from the proceeds but committed the crime that generated such proceeds. It is important to note that the punitive aspect of the value confiscation is aimed at discouraging illicit activities designed to unjustly enrich oneself economically based on the principle that "crime does not pay." The administrator of a legal entity, whether de jure or, as in this case, de facto, knows or should know that by committing a crime, in the event of conviction, they will face a plurality of sanctions, associated with their unlawful behavior, all collectively incorporated into the incriminating norm. Among these sanctions, the confiscation for equivalent constitutes only an optional one because it is subject to the impracticability of specific confiscation, which is the primary normative choice. Consequently, when all the constitutive elements of individual responsibility exist, the assessment of the legitimacy of the imposed real sanction cannot be framed in the perspective of a "de-responsibilization" of the individual solely because the proceeds of the crime benefited the corporate entity (not the author of the crime) and cannot be recovered in another way.
The author's (organizational relationship) to the entity constitutes an essential starting point for the overall criminal situation. It is precisely the criminal act, in its objective and subjective components, manifested in conduct carried out in the interest or for the benefit of the entity, that produces the benefit in favor of the legal person, allowing it to pocket the proceeds of the crime (in the case of certain tax crimes, in the form of expense savings). Since the assets of the entity cannot be directly targeted due to lack of capacity at the time of the seizure request, and since the entity itself cannot be subject to equivalent seizure, the only legitimate possibility remaining, as provided by the legal system, is the sequestration of the administrator's assets (whether de jure or de facto). In this regard, there is no issue of proportionality, as the legal framework strictly limits the patrimonial sacrifice to the amount of profit obtained from the commission of the offense, represented by the failure to make the necessary payment to fulfill the tax obligation (Supreme Court, Criminal Section 3, Sentence No. 11086, 28.03.2022).
In conclusion, there is no escape for the administrator, even for crimes committed for the benefit of the entity, such as tax crimes.
Ayahuasca, drug or religious cult? The strict regulation in Italy
Ancient Spiritual Practices Connected to Ayahuasca or Cocaine High?
May 18, 2023
The Decree of the Ministry of Health dated February 23, 2022, included "Ayahuasca, extract, ground, powder" in Table 1 of the Consolidated Law on Narcotic Drugs (Presidential Decree 309/1990).
Since March 14, 2022, Ayahuasca has been equated with drugs such as heroin, cocaine, or LSD in Italy. Worldwide, only France has taken such a strict stance on a beverage whose origins trace back to the ancient traditions of spiritual cults in the Amazon rainforest.
In Italy, since November, Amelia (fictitious name, ed.) has been detained in prison under the offense provided for by Article 73 of Presidential Decree 309/90.
Despite having no criminal record, she has been denied house arrest, being equated with the most ruthless street drug dealers. We will not disclose further details about the case, as the criminal proceedings are ongoing. We work with the utmost respect for values such as the presumption of innocence, the secrecy of investigations, and human dignity.
The Ayahuasca case is of great interest, not only legally but also involving scientific, medical, spiritual, and religious themes related to freedom of worship, a fundamental right protected by Article 19 of the Italian Constitution.
What is Ayahuasca?
The Italian State Police has mentioned Ayahuasca for some time within the "Encyclopedic Glossary of Abused Substances and Hallucinogenic Plants." The definition begins as follows: "Ayahuasca, in the Quechua language, means 'vine of the spirits,' also called yagé or 'rope of the soul' (capturer of the soul) in Spanish, known by natives in many other ways: caapi, chacrina, daime. It is a psychotropic infusion with a millenary tradition considered sacred by the indigenous people of the entire Amazon forest basin. It has always been used by the local population to treat various forms of discomfort and illnesses..."
It is a preparation made using the bark of the vine Banisteriopsis caapi, to which a second plant, usually Psychotria viridis, is added. The two plants are boiled for many hours until a thick, chestnut-colored, extremely bitter, repulsive, and nauseating liquid is obtained, which often causes vomiting and diarrhea.
Not exactly something pleasant, recreational, to be enjoyed during an aperitif or before a romantic date. Quite the opposite.
The healing properties of Ayahuasca or Santo Daime, considered the most important and powerful medicine in Amazonian pharmacopeia, have been the subject of numerous studies involving sociologists, anthropologists, doctors, chemists, and psychologists.
Those curious can take a look at the website PubMed.gov (National Library of Medicine), an international reference for biomedical literature, where they can find 520 scientific studies on the beverage.
Ayahuasca has been used, among others, for the treatment of depression and in rehabilitation for substance dependencies. From a physical perspective, the beverage has a significant purgative action, acting as a potent detoxifier.
From a chemical standpoint, Ayahuasca is composed of DMT (naturally present in mimosa, tomatoes, beans) in combination with harmine and/or harmaline, two alkaloids with anticancer and anti-degenerative properties, with potential therapeutic applications in the treatment of Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and Lewy body dementia.
According to the tradition of South America, Ayahuasca is exclusively consumed during ceremonial rituals, in which people of all social backgrounds and ages, from children to pregnant women, participate.
In Peru, the ritual followed by native communities is even considered a national cultural heritage. The consumption is subject to specific regulations not only in Brazil but also in the United States (where it is imported by the DEA) and Canada. According to tradition, the ancient and primordial use of the preparation was and is instrumental in obtaining higher knowledge of the world of men and the world of spirits, closely tied to shamanism.
Modern times have come to know Ayahuasca through the Santo Daime religion, which is spread worldwide and represented in Italy by ICEFLU.
Why is it considered a narcotic substance?
In Italy, the legislation has not provided a definition of narcotics. Instead, a so-called tabular system is adopted, whereby the list of "drugs" is determined by the Ministry of Health through tables that are constantly updated.
The offense of drug trafficking, provided for by Article 73 of Presidential Decree 309/90, is punishable by imprisonment for 6 to 20 years. It is what is technically referred to as a "blank criminal provision." In summary, the conduct of "illicit production, trafficking, and possession of narcotic or psychotropic substances" is sanctioned solely based on the definition of "narcotic substance" established by the ministerial tables governed by Article 13 of Presidential Decree 309/90.
To date, Ayahuasca is not subject to international conventions or agreements on narcotic or psychotropic substances. The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) has repeatedly declared that Ayahuasca is not under international control.
There is also no "new scientific evidence" demonstrating the beverage's harm to health.
In over 30 years of controlled and registered consumption, no cases of poisoning, health risks, or public order issues have been recorded. The only opposing data are two reports to the poison control center in Pavia in 2011 and 2018, but the medical data has not been published.
Moreover, the inclusion of Ayahuasca in Table 1 restricts the religious practice of Santo Daime, compromising religious freedom without being supported by medical-scientific foundations or reasons of public order or morality.
For these reasons, there is currently an appeal pending before the Lazio Regional Administrative Court against the illegitimacy of the ministerial decree of February 23, 2022, which classified Ayahuasca as a narcotic substance.
In the meantime, Amelia, after 104 days of pretrial detention, has been released.
On March 9, 2023, the Court of Cassation, accepting the defense's appeal, annulled without referral the order that confirmed the preventive detention issued by a Court of Review.
The reasons for the judgment are awaited.
Amelia still faces a criminal charge that could result in a sentence of 6 to 20 years of imprisonment, and the trial will start in October.
Today, Amelia is free once again.
Acquitted of charge of attempted murder and stalking. Majdi is not guilty
ACQUITTED OF CHARGE OF STALKING AND ATTEMPTED MURDER
MAJDI ABDERRAZZAK'S INNOCENCE ESTABLISHED
On July 4, 2022, the Court of Syracuse established the innocence of Mr. Majdi Aberrazzak, defended by defensive lawyer Stefano Francesco Pipitone.
After 6 years of a complex judicial journey, the nightmare is over for Majdi, who was acquitted by the formula "because the fact does not exist" of the charges of persecutory acts and attempted murder.
In July 2016, the alleged victim, Mounia Ouassa, was found by Carabinieri officers inside the home of Majdi, her ex-boyfriend, unconscious and with a stab wound to her neck.
Ouassa, once she came to her senses, accused her ex boyfriend of having stalked her for months and tried to kill her by cutting her throat with a shard of glass.
From the first moment, Majdi instead represented to the Judicial Police and the prosecuting authority a different story, according to which that girl had fabricated everything, injuring her neck herself in order to ruin her ex's life.
An absurd, far-fetched defense, which cost the suspect immediate arrest and several months of pre-trial detention, spent in the Syracuse Prison House, (so-called Cavadonna Prison).
Six years later, after more than 12 hearings and a trial dialectic that was at times tense, characterized by twists and turns and irreconcilable contradictions, the evidence proved the verisimilitude of the version of facts told from the first moment by the defendant. Majdi was acquitted because the fact does not exist.
Pending the motivations for the judgment, at present we can only share the main defense arguments, centered on three arguments.
The Logical evidence.
Monia Ouassa complained that she had been the victim of stalking, that she had been subjected with death threats such that she lived in a state of perpetual terror, so intense that she no longer left the house unless escorted.
Yet, on July 7, 2016, that same "terrified" girl showed up at Majdi's house alone, hiding from everyone where she was going. Indeed, Ouassa was aware that day that she would find her ex-boyfriend inside his home without the presence of his habitual roommate, who had returned to his own country.
The second illogical circumstance that emerged in the trial concerns Majdi's behavior. The defendant, an irregular non-EU citizen on Italian territory, on the day the events occurred, in the presence of his ex-girlfriend who was unconscious on the ground, bleeding from the throat, upon the arrival of the Carabinieri officers not only did not run away. But he even went to them, handing over the "murder weapon" (a shard of glass) with his own hands.
The Declarative evidence.
By a strange combination of events, contrary to what Ouassa imagined, Majdi was not in the house alone on July 7, 2016. In fact, it had happened that shortly before he had been visited by a compatriot, who was visiting him for a few days.
The guest, a direct witness who was present at the time of the events, has always recounted what he saw with his own eyes: Mounia Ouassa, after entering the house, injured herself, cutting the left side of her neck, just below the ear, with a small piece of glass.
On closer inspection, this is the same version given by Majdi to the Carabinieri in the immediate aftermath. The timely intervention of the Judicial Police and Majdi's immediate arrest make it possible to rule out any risk of contamination of the testimony. However, that testimony remained in a drawer for years. Till the trial.
The Scientific evidence.
The keystone of the trial was the scientific and technical consultancy prepared by Dr. Cataldo Raffino, a medical examiner.
The consultant's long and complex examination introduced into the trial the scientific evidence of the non-compatibility of the characteristics of that specific throat cut with the action (assault) of a third party. The morphology of the cut, the location, the traces of blood all converge toward a single conclusion: that wound was self-made by the victim herself.
The summary of this press release can never do justice to the sufferings and the mental agony endured by an innocent man unjustly accused, dragged despite himself in a 6-year-long court case through a complex of events worthy of a movie script or the publication of a book.
One thing is certain. On July 4, Justice was restored.
Abderrazzak Majdi is not guilty.
Silver Medal for the Athletic Value
Not only advocacy
The Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) has conferred the honour of the Silver Medal for Agonistic Merit to lawyer Stefano Pipitone for his merits in the sport of sailing.
The recognition is linked to the sporting results obtained as helmsman and skipper onboard the sailing boat "South Kensington", owned by Dr. Alessandro Consiglio.
With a letter addressed The President Giovanni Malagò March 1, 2021 wrote:
"Dear Stefano
with great happiness I announce that you have been awarded the Silver Medal for Athletic Valor, in recognition of the well-deserved competitive results obtained in the world championship in 2013.
With this honor the CONI wants to recognize your excellent athletic qualities and express deep gratitude for the generous commitment with which you devote yourself to the activity and face the competitions in the national and international arena.
With my warmest congratulations and with the hope that in the continuation of the activity can achieve further goals and satisfactions, I send you my most affectionate and greetings ... sports!
Interviewed, Lawyer Pipitone stated:
"It was exciting to lead on the podium of a World Championship a crew of young Sicilian talents, all under 30 and all non-professionals. The Silver Medal for Athletic Valor is one of the highest profile awards for sporting merit. For this I thank the great "sport family" of the CUS Catania, today excellently led by Luigi Mazzone, who in the last twenty years has given me the opportunity to grow as an athlete".
"Today more than yesterday, having left the sporting competitions to embrace the legal profession, I have become aware of how much the sport of sailing has given me, and for this I thank my family and my coaches. Representing Italy on the podium of an international competition has been and still is a source of great pride and emotion. As an Italian, certainly, but also as a representative of the city of Catania, a place of enormous potential, not only sporting".
"A thank you goes to all the members of the crew, with whom I faced the most disparate challenges (competitive, weather..), racing and winning from 2010 to 2016: Alessandro Consiglio, Ivan Scimonelli, Tito Gangi, Andrea Sorrentino, Vincenzo Puglisi, Giuseppe Marino, Armin Loreno, Giuseppe Consiglio".
"In conclusion let me make two lines about my land.
Among the many race courses on which I have the opportunity to sail all over the world, I have never seen a more fascinating stretch of water than our gulf, with Etna as a backdrop. We live in a truly unique land. The hope - Pipitone concludes - is that this recognition can be a source of inspiration, spurring all the boys who want to devote themselves and deal with the world of sport, which has always been the gym of life and the highest values."
Professional partner Sole 24ORE Lawyers
New partnership project with Il Sole 24ORE begins
Stefano Pipitone has been selected by the editorial staff of Sole 24ORE as a criminal lawyer with accredited skills in the field of Compliance and Models of Organization d.lgs 231/2001.
Thus began the partnership born from the vision of Sole 24ORE and 4cLegal to establish a professional network of excellence, with the guarantees and professionalism of the Sole 24ORE media world.
Below is the accreditation link.
U-masks and Covid-19. Fraud suspected. A criminal case breaks out
updated 4th of February 2021
U-masks in the eye of the storm
The criminal investigation centres on the allegation that the 'VIP' masks were marketed with a level of protection against the Covid-19 virus that they appear not to have
The Milan Public Prosecutor's Office has opened an investigation into the alleged crime of fraud in the exercise of trade, and the director of the company's Italian branch has been placed on the register of suspects. To make matters worse, the crime is included in the list of offences that - if ascertained - could drag the company into the dock for criminal liability under Legislative Decree 231/2001 (Article 25 bis.1).
Product promises (in brief)
According to the manufacturer, the U-mask (U-mask Model 2), registered as a Class 1 Medical Device, is designed to 'limit contagion between people and is a durable personal protection shield, perfect for reducing exposure to diseases and airborne contaminants'. Online, a comparison between U-masks Model 2 and FFP-2/N95 masks is also shown.
The advertisement promises: "microbes (including the H1N1 virus) are destroyed by the unique patent pending Biolayer inside U-mask". The company's patented BioLayer™ formula would kill pathogens instead of simply blocking them.
The advertising campaign worked: the mask is popular in Formula 1 (Ferrari, Mercedes and McLaren), very common among Italian MPs, it is used by the influencer couple par excellence, Ferragni and Fedez, just to give two coordinates of the phenomenon.
The alleged offence?
The criminal investigation was opened following a criminal complaint by a competitor company, with attached laboratory analyses showing that the filtering capacity of the biotech mask (with the filter lasting 150-200 hours) was 70-80%, compared to the officially advertised 98-99%.
Public Prosecutors Tiziana Siciliano and Eugenio Fusco have delegated the investigation to the local police and the judicial police of the Health, Environment and Labour Department. An evidence requisition has already been issued and a consultant has been appointed to carry out the necessary technical and scientific analyses.
If the facts brought to the attention of the Judicial Authority are ascertained, they will be classified as a crime of fraud in trade, which is covered by Article 515 of the Italian Criminal Code.
The prosecution's theory is that the product, sold as an innovative mask capable of destroying micro-organisms instead of "merely" preventing contact, actually filters out less than the surgical masks sold for 50 cents.
In the company's note, the company's lawyer pointed out that the company's official website does not 'equate' the masks with Ffp2 or Ffp3 masks, but speaks of filters lasting 150 to 200 hours.
Not bad. On the website, the comparison is visual and immediate.
If it were found that the filtering was lower, it would be difficult to reasonably exclude misleading consumers.
As a precautionary measure, the company has removed any express reference to equating filtering power with FFP3.
Added to this is the biological risk of contagion to which thousands of people are allegedly exposed, despite themselves, believing that they are protected. More protected.
The accusatory hypothesis is not unrealistic, since the objective element of the crime in question is the delivery of a different good (in terms of quality, in this case).
Moreover, for the purposes of Article 515 of the Criminal Code, the diversity of the goods must emerge not so much from the name of the products as from an analysis of the factual circumstances relating to quality, type, labelling, the overall name and the manner in which the goods in question were put on sale.
Pending the outcome of the investigations and the possible prosecution of those responsible, it should be noted that in this case, more than in others, the possible offence would certainly have been committed in the interest and to the advantage of the company. For the purposes of the company's criminal liability (Legislative Decree 231/2001), it will be interesting to verify whether and to what extent the company had adopted effective and efficient Organisation, Management and Control Models, (compliance system).
All that remains is to await the outcome of the investigation.
Regardless of the judicial outcome of the case, in the interests of protecting health, the hope is that in these investigations the utmost transparency will be guaranteed regarding the results of the technical consultations carried out on the masks.
Goodbye Master 2020! The Law Firm wishes you a Happy New Year
We've all been in a suspended, surreal time.
In 2020, we learned not to take anything for granted.
We want to thank you all for trusting us to handle your most sensitive issues.
And for 2021 greetings, not really knowing what to write, we chose to share the message of an Indian Master and Mentor.
"If a fire, a loan, or an enemy continues to exist, however minimally, these will continue to grow and grow again. Never let any of these continue to exist, however minimally,"
(Swami Ananda Saraswati).
For 2021 we will continue to extinguish fires, dribble loans, win over enemies. For You.