The Court of Appeal of Rome, with Sentence dated 29 March 2024, confirmed the first degree acquittal sentence, rendered by the Court of the Capital in favor of two holders of CED connected to GoldBet for facts dating back to 2012, when the Austrian operator he collected bets without the concession and authorization titles.
In the first instance proceedings, ADM AND MEF, through the State Attorney's Office, had joined the civil action, requesting compensation for damages of approximately 800.000 euros, contesting the fact that GoldBet was to be considered a discriminated operator for the purposes of access to the concession system . The first instance concluded with a sentence with which the Court of Rome, accepting the arguments of the lawyer Marco Ripamonti, historic defender of the CTDs connected to the Austrian bookmaker, now part of the group Lottomatic, had supported and demonstrated discrimination against GoldBet and its managers. The State Attorney's Office did not give up and appealed, claiming the lack of discrimination both in relation to the Bersani Notice and the subsequent Monti Notice.
At the hearing on 29 March 2024, in the appeal proceedings aimed at ruling on the compensation request, the parties battled, re-proposing their respective positions. In particular, the lawyer Ripamonti reconstructed the entire GoldBet affair, producing all the acquittal sentences obtained in the various Italian courts (about one hundred and fifty) and recounting the details of the hearings held in the Court of Cassation, discussed by the defender himself over the course of a decade, which gave rise to the rulings with which the Supreme Court certified the discrimination that occurred against the Austrian bookmaker.
The first degree sentence was confirmed, with the rejection of the requests for compensation from MEF and ADM.
Thus the lawyer Marco Ripamonti: "I am satisfied, because even with one hundred and fifty sentences under his belt, nothing is ever taken for granted, as well as being in the presence of truly impartial judges, immune from prejudices and influences, especially if the topic is uncomfortable and disliked." , such as gaming and betting, even if the activities are carried out in the interest of the State."
