Did not favor Sempio, charges against former prosecutor Venditti archived

He did not take money to have Andrea Sempio's position archived in the first investigation into the murder of Chiara Poggi: no elements capable of sustaining the corruption charge against Mario Venditti have emerged. For this reason, the GIP of Brescia, Mauroernesto Macca, granted the Prosecutor's Office's request and ordered the archiving of the case against the former deputy prosecutor of Pavia. The investigations, "though extensive, have not yielded any trace of a corrupt agreement attributable to the magistrate," writes the Brescia GIP in the 15 pages of the archiving order.

Banking checks found "no credit transfers, deposits or anomalous funds" linked to withdrawals by the Sempio family, and "no contact — by phone, digital means or in person" between Venditti and the Sempios or their defence lawyers outside of institutional settings has come to light. Yet the mystery surrounding the money is not closed. "This does not mean that every shadow has been dispelled," writes the GIP. The defence lawyers admitted to fees of 45,000 euros, the family's accounts attributed approximately 46,000 euros to the lawyers, while Andrea Sempio's parents spoke of sums of up to 60,000 euros. It is in this discrepancy and in the conflicting versions given by the lawyers that "the residual doubt about the destination of the money resides." A doubt which, however, "in the absence of any trace of it reaching Venditti, does not amount to proof that it did so." The investigation was driven largely by the notes seized at the Sempio home. In one of them, Giuseppe Sempio, Andrea's father, had written "Venditti GIP archives for 20, 30 € euros." Giuseppe Sempio acknowledged being the author of the note, explaining however that the figure referred to a projection of legal costs. The Brescia GIP, in archiving the case against Venditti, observes that the error in the note — attributing to Venditti the role of GIP — denotes "an approximate and second-hand knowledge of procedural roles," which is difficult to reconcile with a direct corrupt relationship. He considers the notes "the plausible transcription of a conversation with the defence lawyers," placing the figure in the context of legal expenses. However, the anomalies from the 2017 investigation remain: incompletely transcribed wiretaps, irregular contacts with Sempio, and omissions in phone records.

Circumstances which, the Brescia judge emphasises, "fall, in almost their entirety, at a different level" from Venditti and concern members of the judicial police. The GIP thus goes on to identify "reasonable alternative reconstructions": a possible "agreement situated at the level of the operating judicial police" or "a false boast made at the expense of the Sempios themselves." Scenarios that do not involve Venditti and that will need to be assessed in another context. With the case against the former deputy prosecutor of Pavia archived — who remains under investigation in the so-called 'Pavia system' strand concerning the use of rental cars during his time at the helm of the Pavia prosecutor's office — the grounds for Brescia's jurisdiction over matters involving magistrates from the Milan district fall away. The remaining inquiries concern Andrea Sempio's father, Giuseppe, who remains under investigation, and any other potential subjects. It will now fall to the Prosecutor's Office of Pavia, to which the Brescia prosecutors have forwarded the case files, to clarify whether a portion of that money was directed elsewhere than towards legal fees and, above all, who may have received it.

"From the very first day, no one among those who had the opportunity to know and work with Dr. Venditti could ever have seriously believed, even for a minute, in the odious hypothesis of a crime or in the premise of the man's dishonesty," commented lawyer Domenico Aiello, Venditti's attorney. "On the contrary, there were two magistrates who not only believed it but intended to promote a veritable media lynching, which began at dawn, live and on all networks simultaneously, without having first identified the corruptor and, even more seriously, without seeing fit to hear the version of their former colleague, ignoring every logic or reason, even though it had been promptly and transparently presented by the defense." Aiello concluded: "It was a sad, disgraceful episode; the fact that other magistrates, deserving and shrewd, whom I thank, ultimately remedied the situation does not justify, and above all does not compensate for the suffering of the man and his family, nor does it in any way repair the disgrace and the mud thrown at the entire category of magistrates."

Reproduction reserved © Copyright ANSA