The first sentence to end the criminal sentence for Nicolò Scialfa was pronounced in January 2022 by the Supreme Court, with two years and four months in prison. It seemed that he had settled his account with the law. But no. For the former professor and principal, highly esteemed in the school environment, but who ended up in legal trouble when he entered politics and became councilor and vice president of the regional council, comes another blow: condemned by Court of Auditors to compensate the Region with 117 thousand euros, of which approximately 39 thousand for property damage and 78 thousand for damage to the image because “it had generated a negative idea in the community of the actions of the Regional Council”.
Let’s talk about one of the many chapters of “crazy expenses” of the regional councilors, with various strands that exploded in 2014. The one concerning Scialfa it concerns the former members of the Italia dei Valori group, during the 2010-2015 legislature (Burlando Council). With him they ended up under investigation Marylin Fusco, Maruska Piredda And Stefano Quaini. It should be remembered that Scialfa ended up under house arrest for 6 months.
Having paid the bill with the criminal justice system and after the suspension as principal, the accounting department is now presenting the charge, with a summons dated September 2023 signed by the deputy attorney general Adriano Gribbaudo and the conviction (of first degree) of 7 March last: “… for reimbursements of expenses not due for the years 2010 and 2011 by the council group Di Pietro-Italy of Values”. On the other hand, the report for treasury damage by the Guardia di Finanza dates back to 2014, parallel to the investigative activity of the Criminal Prosecutor’s Office, which was followed in the first instance by the criminal conviction for embezzlement and forgery, then the appeal with the statute of limitations crime of forgery; again with the Court of Cassation in 2020 he had ordered a new trial and the definitive sentence of conviction in 2022, both for Scialfa and for Fusco, “confirming in the rest, and in particular with regard to the sentence for compensation in favor of the Liguria Region” that had been constituted a civil party.
Before the Court of Auditors the former regional councilor (assisted by the lawyer Glauco Stagnaro) asked for the abbreviated procedure, but the prosecutor gave a negative opinion. The request would have been “inadmissible because it related to malicious conduct also characterized by the malicious enrichment of the injurer”. Furthermore, Scialfa had asked to be able to compensate the Region with the sum of 58 thousand euros (50% of the compensation claim requested by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Auditors). Again, his lawyer objected to the statute of limitations, “in consideration of the time that has passed since the expenditure was made and the full knowledge of the facts”: that is, more than 5 years from 2014. The prosecutor, however, contested it, motivating it: “The right to compensation… in the event of malicious concealment of the damage, is barred from the date of its discovery”.
It should be remembered that on the criminal side the public prosecutor Francesco Pinto (now deputy prosecutor) and his colleague Massimo Terrile, had made the accusation of embezzlement regarding the use of public money intended for regional councilors for travel, dinners and stationery expenses. Even if the different strands ended with many acquittals and prescriptions.
Another story for Scialfa and his council group. He, in particular, was accused of having presented invoices for dozens of bottles of wine bought in Burgundy “for thousands of euros”, and of having also requested reimbursement for those bought by his friends; for books “the inherence of which is not clear” with his political and institutional activity; expenses for ties, scarves, perfumes, tobacco, silverware, dry cleaning, make-up; even “expenses for leather goods and household goods in Agira, the municipality of birth of the accused”. Even though he appealed to the regulatory uncertainty on the matter (until the 2012 law), to the lack of guidelines from the Presidency of the Regional Council. And it was of no use recalling in the defense brief “the exemplary working conduct (of the professor and principal, ed), always characterized by maximum commitment”.
