There would be a “risk of repetition of crimes” in the current phase. Today Signorini in front of the prosecutors
May 27, 2024
The investigating judge of Genoa has the request for revocation of house arrest was rejected advanced by the lawyers of Aldo Spinelli, the port entrepreneur investigated together with Giovanni Toti as part of the investigation into corruption in Liguria. Spinelli therefore remains under house arrest in his home in Quarto in Genoa. The reasons are linked to a risk identified in the current phase repetition of crimes.
Today Signorini’s interrogation before prosecutors
A new week of interrogations begins as part of the investigation into corruption in Liguria. After Giovanni Toti, president suspended by the Liguria region under house arrest on May 7th who in recent days responded to the magistrates’ questions, today it will be the turn of the former president of the Port of Genoa Paolo Emilio Signorini be heard by the prosecutors of the investigation.
Signorini is the only one of the suspects to have ended up in prison in Marassi accused of having benefited the terminal operator Aldo Spinelli on a series of practices linked to the Genoa airport. After having availed himself of the right not to answer in the preliminary hearing before the investigating judge, today Signorini will be heard by magistrates around 12pm in court. He himself had made himself available to do so clarify his position. In the meantime, we are moving towards one request for mitigation, and not revocation, of the precautionary measure. An application that could be advanced in the next few hours.
Liguria investigation, corrected report by Roberto Spinelli: “Legitimate financing”
The word contained in the report of the interrogation of Roberto Spinelli, son of Aldo, who in the context of the investigation into corruption in Liguria, heard by the investigating judge, had spoken of “legitimate financing” requested by the governor Giovanni Totiand not “illegal” as erroneously indicated in the report. His lawyers had noticed the error and had asked the judge for a correction, on which the investigating judge in turn sent a request to the prosecutor’s office, which, having listened to the recording again, identified the ‘error which will then be corrected.
