At the request of our readerswe asked an expert to explain the reasons behind the criminal judge’s dismissal decree. The dismissal of the fraud charges against Genoa CEO Blazquez is very long and detailed.
We have chosen to extract some significant aspects relating to striking elements of the accusations made against Blazquez by ACM, a company controlled by A-CAP.
ACM claimed that Blazquez acted fraudulently to favor Sucu’s purchase of Genoa for a little money, when instead the rossoblu partnership could have been sold for much higher sums. However, from reading the premises of the criminal judge’s decree (GIP) which led to the dismissal of the charges, a completely different and opposite reality emerges.
At the end of 2024, the FIGC, the Banca Sistema, the Revenue Agency and the suppliers were on a war footing against Genoa. The value of the rossoblu company, at the time of the capital increase resolution, was between 11 and 14 million euros. On the other hand, the potential hypothetical buyer would have had to take on almost 300 million euros of debt for an Italian football club not far from insolvency.
And as noted in the decree, it was not so obvious that, in those circumstances, someone would show up to buy Genoa.
In this scenario, Dan Sucu’s capital increase resolution was approved for an amount more than triple the real value of the company.
Given Genoa’s debt situation at the time, it was an entry into the club under conditions that were not exactly favourable, contrary to what was contested by ACM.
ACM also claimed that its failure to subscribe to Genoa’s capital increase was the result of a lack of knowledge of the agenda of the December 2024 meeting.
Regardless of the fact that 777’s delegation to ACM to vote in the members’ meeting of the rossoblu association was contained in a loan contract between 777 and ACM and which, evidently, was not enforceable against Genoa (as also ruled in civil court), in this case too, reading the premises of the dismissal decree reveals a reality opposite to that presented by ACM.
From the production documents of the criminal trial, however, it emerges that not only was ACM aware of the increase resolution, but also that it had even demonstrated its open disinterest. In particular, even Don Dransfield (consultant of 777 and A-CAP) proved to be aware of the famous agenda which included the resolution of the capital increase. In fact, exactly on the day of the meeting, Dransfield asked for updates on the outcome of the capital increase resolution, thus taking it for granted that Genoa had communicated the agenda with the increase resolution submitted to shareholders and third parties.
In light of all this evidence, it appears anything but surprising that the Court of Genoa, both in civil and criminal proceedings, has endorsed the actions of the rossoblu club and its manager Blazquez three times out of three.
And finally a note. The criminal judge who ordered the dismissal against Blazquez simultaneously requested the transmission of the witness statements of Paul Mann (an official of Banca Moelis, an investment bank that seemed responsible for finding buyers for Genoa) and of Jill Gettman (administrator of ACM) who allegedly made statements deemed false to the Genoese judicial authority. In the case of the testimony of former president Preziosi, the Judge does not believe that there is the same certainty that the statements are false, however, he decided to transmit the documents to the Prosecutor’s Office for the evaluation of the case.
Rome-Genoa | De Rossi: “Gasperini’s teams face each other with great respect, but without fear”
