The curtain falls on one of the most significant operations in recent years regarding gaming and betting, which in this case involved the police forces and the public prosecutor's office of Florence.
The investigations, concerning facts that took place between 2013 and 2017, were coordinated by the Guardia di Finanza of Empoli and chaired by the Chief Prosecutor at the Public Prosecutor's Office of Florence, Dr. Creazzo and the deputy prosecutor Dr. Focardi and concerned numerous suspects, partly merchants and partly gaming operators, including well-known Venetian entrepreneurs Massimiliano Fullin e Fabio Veglianetti, assisted bylawyer Renato Alberini of the Forum of Venice and fromadv. Mark Ripamonti with studios in Viterbo and Florence. The well-known company is also involved in the proceedings Medialive Casino ltd, assisted byadv. Marianna Poletto of the Court of Florence.
As part of the proceedings, personal precautionary measures were applied and searches and seizures of money and property were carried out.
The charges referred to the crimes of criminal association aimed at the illegal collection of games and bets, with the aggravating circumstance of transactionality.
After the preliminary investigation and review phase, held at the Court of Florence, the Florence GUP itself referred the file to the Court of Prato for reasons of territorial jurisdiction.
And it is in Prato that the procedure had its sensational epilogue.
At the preliminary hearing on 22 February 2024, all 21 defendants were acquitted with the formula "the fact does not exist" and everything was released from seizure. Medialive was also acquitted in relation to the disputed violation of law 231/2001.
It was the Prato Public Prosecutor's Office itself, on the basis of the arguments supported by the defense of the defendants Fullin and Veglianetti, which all the other defendants agreed with, to advance a reasoned and reasoned request for acquittal, fully shared by the GUP which, consequently, also ordered the release of seized money and properties.
These are the words of satisfaction expressed by the lawyer. Marco Ripamonti, who with the lawyer. Renato Alberini elaborated the defensive thesis which, producing the non-existence of the crimes of illegal collection of the game, led as a logical consequence to the nullification of the association's dispute: "I am very satisfied with the happy outcome of the proceedings, which had its epilogue in the preliminary hearing, thus avoiding a trial which would have been useless, with further and unnecessary costs for the State. First of all, I take this opportunity to thank the lawyer. Renato Alberini, with whom I had the privilege of sharing the defense of our clients and the lawyer. Marianna Poletto, who represented Medialive ltd. This time too, the matter of games and betting determined the fate of the trial, with its regulatory implications and its innumerable facets, sometimes transcending in ambiguity. We have drawn up a defense brief, with the valid collaboration of my valid colleague at the firm adv. Riccardo Ripamonti, which was evidently deemed well-founded and worthy of sharing. We have argued and demonstrated with conviction that the numerous charges of fine crimes, in their essence, as formulated and in light of the combined provisions of a series of legislative provisions and legitimate jurisprudential arrests, were not subsumable in any of the criminal cases that contemplate the 'art.4 law 401/89. Hence the inevitable fall of the crime of association which, naturally, cannot be recognized as having non-criminal purposes. The thesis was strengthened by precedents that we had already obtained from the GUP of Castrovillari and from the Collegiate Court of Agrigento. The Gup of the Court of Prato therefore acquitted all the accused, awaiting the serial formulation of all the charges of the fine crimes and the extensibility of the argument to all the accused. Finally we can say that this long-standing affair, which due to the position of some of my patronages has also had unpleasant and painful consequences, can be considered concluded. I believe there is not even room for any administrative disputes regarding the fine crimes, considered of no criminal relevance, given that the facts, from an administrative point of view, are now prescribed and also in consideration that, regarding one of them, already the subject of an order – injunction from ADM, the Civil Court of Florence accepted the opposition advanced by us, with a certainly more current and updated rereading of the so-called Balduzzi Decree”.
