According to airport workers, Piero Fassino is a repeat offender. For this reason he was reported by the duty free shop at Fiumicino airport. And that’s why the vigilantes were keeping an eye on him. And for this reason the Polaria agents decided to listen to other employees of the commercial establishment, not on duty on Monday 15 April. That is, when the Democratic Party deputy was stopped by vigilantes with Chanel’s Chance perfume worth a hundred euros in his pocket. The indiscretion that the former mayor of Turin, who is not new to episodes like the one about ten days ago, would like comes from the workers on duty at the Leonardo da Vinci airport. And he would explain, if it were true, why the owners of the shop decided to report the parliamentarian. Instead of covering up everything after Fassino offered to pay the bill.
Video
Fassino claims to have taken the perfume as a gift for his wife, even though that day he was headed to Strasbourg for a meeting with some European parliamentarians. However, the footage from the surveillance cameras contradicts this: in the images of him you can see him putting the perfume in his pocket without having the phone in his hands, as he claimed. And he is also seen leaving the business before the intervention of the security guards, even though he said that they intervened when he was still on site. The Civitavecchia prosecutor’s office is investigating the matter. Who is well aware of the fact that the deputy enjoys immunity for the entire duration of his mandate. While in order to carry out the investigations, authorization to proceed will be necessary. Which must be requested from Montecitorio, as per rule.
A way out
Meanwhile, Corriere della Sera reports that there is still a way out for the deputy. In fact, the company might consider dropping the complaint if the deputy offered to foot the bill. And he has already made it known that he wants to do it. The new rule provides that magistrates proceed only in the presence of a complaint. And then the magistrates could lean towards the tenuousness of the fact. Thus avoiding an embarrassing judicial follow-up for what according to the officials was not even the first case.
