Capital gains Juve, the “Covisoc card”, the exclusive content

An exchange of information of just six pages in which Juventus is never mentioned. This is the content of the famous Covisoc note of 14 April 2021 which today, after the decisions of the Tar and the appeal rejected by the Council of State, the offices of the FIGC handed over to the lawyers of Paratici and Cherubini. The issue of capital gains is obviously dealt with, the federal prosecutor writing to the president of Covisoc reports the cases of Chievo and Cesena and that of Perugia and Atalanta, but Chiné himself raises a question of method in identifying a possible fraud linked to the altered valuations of the players.

The crime news

—

In the conclusions he then adds: “On the basis of these considerations in law, from which this Public Prosecutor’s Office cannot disregard in the exercise of its investigatory and prosecutorial prerogatives, it is clear that the exercise of disciplinary action in this matter, in a methodological logic of continuity with respect to the assessments already carried out in the previous disciplinary relevant cases examined, may be usefully pursued where sufficient elements emerge to corroborate the need to investigate cases which reasonably lead to believe the existence of player exchange transactions between two or more professional clubs, in terms of systematic nature of the same market operations, not an episodic operation, aimed at overestimating the balance sheet data of the same companies by means of the ccdd system. Capital gains”. That “where sufficient elements emerge to corroborate the need to investigate” would seem to show the absence of crime newsas instead claimed on several occasions by Juve’s lawyers.

The reasons

—

So why did the prosecutor’s office repeatedly refuse the invitation to show the card? Chiné also underlined in the hearing that “certain communications form part of the daily exchanges between us and Covisoc”, therefore not falling within the procedural documents. The fear of the Federation is linked above all to the risk of having to comply with any type of similar request in the future and it will continue to defend this principle in a hearing before the Council of State on 23 March.