Liguria. Paul Signorini she will be able to go under house arrest as soon as she is found from his defenders a suitable accommodation and provided that these house arrest is “armoured” with “the absence of contact with people other than cohabitants”.
He writes it Court of Appeal in rejecting the application of lawyers Enrico and Mario Scopesi because the two housing solutions proposed (a house on loan for use in Genoa and a house made available by a brother in Aosta) were not deemed adequate.
For the judges of the investigation into corruption in Liguria, the alternatives proposed by the defense attorneys present problems of both a formal nature (the proposals were filed via email and not at the registry) and, above all, of a material nature. For example, says the Review, it is not clear whether the relatives (e none of them “offered to welcome Signorini into their home”) “intend to take on both the commitment to satisfy the daily needs of the suspect by providing for all his material needs both the commitment to provide financially for its maintenance”. This is because Signorini’s lawyers have underlined that their client, recently fired by Iren, is “without means of subsistence”. The judges also recall a telephone interception where the Brother to whom the former president of the port had asked for a loan of 8 thousand euros to pay for the catering of his daughter’s wedding, had told him that he did not have that amount.
Now it will be up to the lawyers Enrico and Mario Scopesi to study a new housing solution or to better clarify those proposals and present a new request to the judge Paola Faggioni (because the review has currently completed its task and the new request will have to return to the judge and then only in the event of a new rejection, return for the second time to the review).
For the rest, the Review, between the lines, says some rather clear things: gthe lawyers not only “do not contest a serious circumstantial framework with respect to the facts” but they do not even contest the existence of precautionary requirements with respect to the risk of repetition of the crime and contamination of evidence. In fact, the the request is still that of “a custodial measure” (house arrest is equivalent to prison also from the point of view of the ‘pre-suffering’ at the time of a possible conviction). Simply after a month and a half in prison they believe that he can have a precautionary treatment equal to that of the other co-defendants.
And the Review Court agrees on this: Signorini will be able to go under house arrest as soon as suitable accommodation is found and provided that this house arrest is “armored” (this is the term used by the judges). On the other hand, the judges hope, after the time spent in prison it is “predictable” that the former president of the port will refrain from “the express prohibition of contact with third parties different from those he lives with” since he knows he would immediately end up back behind bars.
Since the request did not foresee going into the merits of the accusations, the Review Court does not do so, but some passages are nevertheless very significant with respect to the circumstantial evidence. In fact, the Review Court speaks of “conducts described in detail in the documents – through which Signorini tried to “conceal the receipt of the benefits received” and which according to the judges Massimo Cusatti, Luisa Avanzino and Marina Orsini are indicative of “a certain obstinacy in criminal conduct“even recently, with the new assignment at Iren” they explain with reference to the 200 thousand euro consultancy to Mauro Vianello.
