9th September 2002

Statement in defence of Francesco IAGHER

Against the verdict pronounced on 9th July 2002  

1.         PREFACE.

I, Francesco IAGHER, born on 24th February 1946 in Rome, was arrested by the Authorities in Monaco on 3rd April 2001 for money laundering, fraud, fraud attempt, and fraud concealment.
During questioning on 2nd April 2001 (my detention in police custody started in the early hours of the same day) neither a lawyer nor an interpreter was present.
The absence of the latter was quite prejudicial to me because although I’ve been living in Monaco for many years I do not speak French fluently neither do I have a perfect understanding of it: french is a difficult language as a single word can have several meanings and a sentence several interpretations. In italian I can give a specific sense to each word but in french I cannot.
In 409 days of investigation I was called for questioning only 3 (three) times – 4th and 16th May, and 5th October 2001.
Showing a strong will for persecution the examining magistrate who had nothing but suspicions against me conducted his inquiries with only one objective – incriminate me by all means.
Thus began defamatory attacks on my person and on my professional activities (see ordinance of arraignment), on alleged secret mafia meetings which would have taken place in Monaco (but lucky enough to find the video recording of the incriminated meeting we were able to show that the press, French television, as well as many public figures –including the Monaco Government Adviser on Justice and an Italian minister Mr. Rocco BUTTIGLIONE- were present at the meeting).
International rogatory warrants and information requests were then sent out (e.g. to the Direzione Investigativa Antimafia  -DIA- in Rome) with the hope of finding records of my involvement in shady or suspicious activities. The reply from the Authorities in Vienna denied all such involvement (no link or relationship with the DEVERINI affair); that from the French Authorities was not any different –(in this case the examining magistrate, confusing the bank account n°. 24349 belonging to the company « Fiduciary Ltd » with the account n°. 16322 in the name of « IF Fiduciary Ltd », suspected me of an offence I knew nothing about); the Italian Authorities communicated all the documents in the case file entitled « TESTA + 3 » and these reveal that after inquiries IAGHER’s name is not in the list of those implicated -for the simple reason that he has nothing to do with the offences committed; the Direzione Investigativa Antimafia (DIA) in Rome, replying on 13 April 2001 to the information request of 5th April 2001, declared that IAGHER’s name appears neither in the inter-force electronic data (where all complaints and court verdicts are recorded) nor in the records of the office.
It is needless to comment all the accusations piled up against me by the examining magistrate: link with the Masonry, with the lodge P2 of Licio Gelli, with International Crime, with the Sicilian Mafia (simply because some of my clients are from Sicilia, Toscana, Lazio, Puglia etc). These accusations continued in spite of DIA’s affirmation that I have no records in their books and the fact notwithstanding that both my legal records’certificate and the Public Prosecutor’s certificate (concerning people being probed) indicate NO RECORDS.
Well ! all these accusations, even if partially mentioned to discredit me in the verdict condemning me, were not held against me and were not included in my indictment charges: it’s the same with the continuous slander against the professionalism which I acquired after so many years of working experience in Europe in such different positions as
* « Adviser of Trust » to the Italian General Consulate, Monaco.
* Member and Arbitrator, Chambre Arbitrale Maritime de Monaco.
* Member of the Royal Economic Society of London.
* Member of the International B.A.R. Association of London.
* Sport Adviser, Ministère de la Jeunesse et des Sports, France.
* CDU’s (Italian political party) representative in the Sports Committee on Doping at the European Parliament.
* Former technical adviser to the Public Prosecutor in Rome, and former National Adviser on Labour in Italy.
All these activities are authenticated by testimonials in the proceedings.

 

2.         ACCUSATIONS AND DEFENCE ARGUMENTS.
In this chapter are transcribed the ignominious accusations which led to my conviction with a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 25,000 euros for RECEIVING and CONCEALING money from FRAUD. For easy referencing they are numbered from 1 to 22.
Each of these accusations is followed by the relevant defence arguments citing documentary proofs, police reports and legal writs, from both Monaco and Italy, by which one can ascertain the realities of the facts.
 
2.1.      ACCUSATION (verdict, page 10, line 4).
That in this case even if it has not been established that the initial offence of fraud has been as at this day judged in Italy it remains all the same obvious from the request for judicial assistance of 25th January 1999 issued by the Public Prosecutor in Rome and delivered to the judicial authorities in Monaco that legal action has been engaged in Italy -principally against Mario TESTA- on the fraud implicated in the present trial.
 
2.1.      DEFENCE.
In Italy on 25th January 1999 lawyers representing the Banca di Roma lodged a complaint for fraud with the Criminal Investigation Department of the Police in Rome. The complaint followed an internal inquiry instigated by the discovery of an illegal debit dated 4th December 1998 at branch 200 of the bank.
Italian Criminal Police investigations effectively showed there had been a fraud and this led to the criminal proceedings n°. 29223/99 R.G. PM of the Court in Rome.
Further inquiries revealed that the authors of the fraud are:
Mario TESTA, manager of branch 200 of the bank;
Simona PEDRETTI, employee at the same branch;
Antonio CORRADI, employee at the same branch;
Renato MANGIONE, a friend of the manager (he willingly presented himself to the police –Adjutant Sergio ZIINO- and to the italian magistrate on 26th July 2001).
These people are being prosecuted but as at this day a date is yet to be fixed for preliminary hearing. (see the italian proceedings).
 
2.2.      ACCUSATION (verdict, page 10, line 34)
That it was Mario TESTA, manager of the implicated branch of Banca di Roma who had the idea of embezzling the amount of money in a dormant account opened in 1971 by Joseph Désiré MOBUTU.
 
2.2.      DEFENCE.
Mario TESTA, manager of branch 200 of Banca di Roma since 21st April 1997 knows that a current account opened in 1971 in the name of Mobutu had never been operated.
TESTA, « originator » of the fraud:
*blocked the account in May 1997,
*called on MANGIONE to assist in getting a contact abroad for the money’s transfer,
*persuaded 2 of the bank employees to participate in the fraud.
(see the italian proceedings).
 
2.3.      ACCUSATION (verdict, page 11, line 1)
That Renato MANGIONE recognised having colluded with Mario TESTA; taking charge of the Monaco side of the fraud he was to put at the disposal of the « venture » a Monaco-based company in favour of whose bank account the electronic transfer from the Mobutu account would be effected.
 
2.3.      DEFENCE.
Renato MANGIONE, wilfully presenting himself to the Italian police and afterwards to the Deputy Public Prosecutor in Rome, Mr. Andrea SERENI, on two occasions –26th July and 12th October 2001, declared that:
* the idea of the fraud came from a former classmate, Mario TESTA, manager of branch 200 of Banca di Roma, who informed him of a current account in the name of a certain Mobutu, which had been dormant for many years;
* with TESTA they decided to transfer the money on the above-mentioned account into a current account abroad;
* TESTA was to take care of operations related to the transfer while MANGIONE contacted my office, Cabinet IAGHER, for the creation of a company and the opening of its bank account in Monte-Carlo.
* IAGHER, unaware of the fraud, asked all the same if the money was of doubtful or illegal source and he was assured of the contrary.
(see the italian proceedings).
 
2.4.      ACCUSATION (verdict, page 11, line 6)
That Simonetta PEDRETTI, an employee of Banca di Roma, assisted TESTA in changing the name of the Mobutu account to W.M.O. and not to Egyptian Embassy as she erroneously stated.
 
2.4.      DEFENCE
Simonetta PEDRETTI, an employee of Banca di Roma, also indicted in the italian fraud trial –criminal proceedings n°. 20668/99 R.G. GIP- admitted the charges against her. On 4th October 2001 she made the following declarations before the Deputy Public Prosecutor, Mr. Andrea SERENI.
* the Manager, TESTA, on his assumption of duty at the branch, asked her for explanations on a dormant current account in the name of a certain Mobutu and knowing that the holder was deceased, he blocked the account;
* TESTA explained to her that it was possible, without any risk, to transfer the money into a foreign account and promised her 400,000 US$ for her assistance;
* she accepted and they proceeded to a number of computer simulations to test the success of the operation; they finally succeeded in effecting, not only a transfer in favour of the Egyptian Embassy’s current account (also held in that branch) but also the reverse transfer –without any problem;
* after this simulation and several tests the manager, TESTA, carried out the « Mobutu » transfer on 4th December 1998 using the password attributed to Pedretti who, indisposed, was absent that day;
* on 8th January 1999 Mrs. Pedretti met Mario TESTA at the Hotel Mirabeau in Monte-Carlo. He gave her only 25,000 US$ saying that she would have to wait some time for the balance because, due to police investigation, there are some complications in Monte-Carlo. At the same place he also informed her that the money would then have been transferred into the account of a company called Daisy and afterwards into a personal account in his own name.
From the verifications and inquiries carried out by the Italian police in Rome it results that:
* on 27th November 1998 the Mobutu account was modified, using an employee’s password, to « W.M.O. » (World Meteorological Organisation), an organ of the UNO with activities in Italy, which has an account at branch 200 of Banca di Roma;
* on 11th December 1998 (after the remittance of the money) the original name of Mobutu was restored to the account: for this particular operation the password used was M016102 belonging to Antonio CORRADI, another employee of the bank who was also later indicted.
(see italian police reports in the italian proceedings).
 
2.5.      ACCUSATION (verdict, page 12 line 11, page 13 lines 1 & 5)
Whereas these facts are enough to constitute the fraud offence in Monaco since they characterise, on one hand, the fraudulent manoeuvres intended to persuade the bank of the existence of a fake company and, on the other hand, the payment of money by the « funds depositary » i.e. Banca di Roma;
That one can note, for whatever purpose it may serve, that these facts also constitute fraud in Italy since they characterise the obtaining, by craftiness and tricks, of illegal profit at the expense of a third party, offence punishable by virtue of paragraph 640 of the Italian Penal Code/
Whereas during hearings the defence counsel pleaded in vain that an agreement signed in Italy between Banca di Roma, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mobutu’s heirs would have annulled all possible illicit attributions to the facts referred to.
 
2.5.      DEFENCE.
In Italy the fraud against Banca di Roma seems evident since through the criminal proceedings n°. 29223/99 RG PM the following 4 people are being prosecuted:
Mario TESTA,  Simona PEDRETTI,  Antonio CORRADI,  Renato MANGIONE.
I, Francesco IAGHER, in spite of the international rogatory warrant transmitted to Monaco from Italy and that addressed to the Italian authorities by Magistrate Hullin in Monaco, was not, at the outcome of criminal proceedings n°. 20668/99 RG GIP, indicted in Italy for this offence.
On 23rd July 2001, at the Civil Court in Rome, a legal agreement and a reconciliatory report were signed between the heirs of Mobutu and Banca di Roma Spa. In this transaction, the two parties came to an agreement which provides for the bank’s reimbursement of 2,907,914 US$ to Mobutu’s heirs. In return the heirs and the Democratic Republic of Congo accept having no other claims –legally or otherwise- and renounce to taking any action against the agreement.
Paragraph 640 of the Italian Criminal Code stipulates that: he who, through tricks and underhand practices, inducing others in error, earns for himself or for a third party an illegal profit at the expense of another, is liable to a term of imprisonment of 6 months to 3 years and a fine of 100,000 to 2,000,000 liras.
Thus, fraud presupposes that someone organises the malpractice to obtain an illegal profit for himself (Mario TESTA) at the expense of another (Banca di Roma). This organiser induces in error someone else who is certainly not conscious of the offence committed. Giving the title « TESTA +3 » to the criminal proceedings in the italian trial the Italian judiciary identified the brain who, with the complicity of 3 other people, committed the fraud. The one « induced in error » is me who, unaware of the plot, wilfully cooperated with the authorities by showing all the documentary proofs required to Inspector Van Den Corput (on account of the rogatory warrant from Italy). The illegal profit I was accused of (59,000 french francs) is not in any way comparable to the 400,000 US$ and the 540,000 US$ promised respectively to Pedretti and Mangione (figures documented in the italian police inquiry report contained in the criminal proceedings in Rome).
How is it possible that, for an operation already known to be illegal and involving as much as 2,710,000 US$, the role of registering a new company (6th January 1998), opening a current account (30th November 1998) and furnishing all the necessary tax advice would generate only 59,000 feanch francs ?
On 18th January 1999 Banca di Roma phoned to inform the CFM (Credit Foncier de Monaco) of the fraud committed against it and this was confirmed on 20th January by a letter in which the CFM was requested to furnish urgent information to help recover the amount misappropriated (see letter and police inquiry report in the italian proceedings).
In spite of these two requests the CFM made no verifications; it communicated no information to Banca di Roma neither did it report to the Monaco Police and/or Judiciary nor to SICCFIN (organ supervising financial operations in Monaco). The fraud was thus covered by the CFM till October 2000 when the international rogatory warrant from the Public Prosecutor in Rome –Mr. Sereni- was received in Monaco.
The CFM also induced Inspector Van Den Corput in error by failing to disclose that it had earlier been informed of the fraudulent act.
(see the italian criminal proceedings’ file and the documents transmitted by the CFM to the above mentioned police inspector).
 
2.6.      ACCUSATION (verdict, page 13, lines 25 & 28, page 14, line 1).
Whereas, also, the offence of receiving and concealing consists particularly in being in possession of an object knowing that its origin is illegal.
That in this case the amount of 2,710,000 US$ coming from the fraud committed at the expense of Banca di Roma on 10th December 1998 was transferred into the account of Daisy Ltd operating on IAGHER’s signature.
That Francesco IAGHER was thus in possession of this amount of money on this account, and then made use of it by means of a cash withdrawal effected by his employee, Marco Bottone, (60 million liras intended for MANGIONE on 14th December), of a remittance in his own favour (59,000 francs for fees on 15 December), and of 9 successive transfers falsely recorded as « cash withdrawals » in the bank’s books –of which 5 are in favour of account n°. 30078654 V open in the name of TESTA in this same bank, and 4 in favour of account n°. 30074510 in the name of Renato MANGIONE and also in the same bank.
 
2.6.      DEFENCE.
As already stated here above –paragraph 2.5 Defence- I had no knowledge of the fraud committed in Rome, I can therefore not be accused of concealment. The transfer of the 2,710,000 US$ into Daisy Ltd’s account was typed by Mario TESTA on 4th December 1998 (see Banca di Roma’s complaint to the Police in Italy) with value 9th December 1998 – and not 10th December as written in the verdict.
On 4th December 1998 MANGIONE sent me a fax asking to be informed as soon as Daisy’s account is credited with the amount transferred; he also indicated two current account numbers – 10074466 M and 30078654 V – for the investment of the money (weekly and/or fortnightly term deposits, bonds, stocks etc).
On 14th December 1998, respecting MANGIONE’s instructions, I sent a fax to CFM ordering the following transfers:
14th December: 568,000 US$,  executed 21st December 1998,
15th December: 450,000 US$,  executed 22nd December 1998,
16th December: 450,000 US$,  executed 23rd December 1998,
17th December: 300,000 US$,  executed 28th December 1998,
18th December: 392,412 US$,  executed 29th December 1998.
The same day I withdrew, at MANGIONE’s request, 60 million liras (approx 30,000 euros) from the Daisy account.
On 15th December 1998, in settlement of an invoice established for consultancy fee a remittance of 59,000 Frf. was ordered in my favour from the Daisy account.
On 21st December 1998 I sent a fax to CFM for the following transfers:
22nd December: 75,000 US$,  executed 23rd December 1998,
23rd December: 100,000 US$,  executed 23rd December 1998,
24th December: 100,000 US$,  executed 28th December 1998,
26th December: 250,000 US$,  executed 29th December 1998.
On 24th December 1998 my office, Cabinet IAGHER, closed down for holidays and I went abroad with my wife to return to Monaco on 3rd January 1999 (see travel agency’s letter and pictures furnished).
 
But then, without my knowledge:
* On 29th and 30th November 1998 TESTA and MANGIONE came to Monaco (verified by Inspector Van Den Corput); they got in contact with the CFM and on 30th November 1998 TESTA opened a personal current account –n°. 30078654V (see the italian proceedings).
* On 4th December 1998 in Rome TESTA typed the transfer order in favour of Daisy Ltd and thus effectively triggered off the fraud.
* On 14th December 1998 my transfer orders to the CFM were not executed (because CFM was waiting for TESTA and MANGIONE to come to Monte-Carlo).
* On 21st December 1998 TESTA and MANGIONE came to the CFM and then:
MANGIONE opened his personal account n°. 30074510R,
TESTA and MANGIONE withdrew money from their personal accounts
(see the italian proceedings and italian rogatory warrant).
From the above chronological steps the money was in my possession only from 9th to 21st December (CFM’s notice informing me of the arrival of the transfer did not reach my office until 14th December) and there was no strange movement that might give the impression of any attempt of concealment or of depriving the legitimate beneficiary of the money.
All orders were given by fax or letter (easily traceable) and never orally: they all correspond to instructions given by MANGIONE who, on 4th December 1998 sent me a very detailed fax.
All these documents have always been easily at the disposal of the investigators to whom I furnished all information in my possession including original records in my office, Cabinet IAGHER.

2.7.      ACCUSATION (verdict, page 14, lines 16 & 22).
That the tracing of the origin of the funds serving for these 9 transfers is facilitated by the fact that the Daisy Ltd account, opened on 2nd December 1998, was empty before it was credited with the above-mentioned sum of 2,710,000 US$; thus, the money transferred into TESTA’s and MANGIONE’s accounts can have no other source than the fraud against Banca di Roma.
That, moreover, Francesco IAGHER is not contesting this point.
 
2.7.      DEFENCE.
The Daisy account was opened on 30th November 1998 and not 2nd December 1998 as indicated in the verdict.
The transfer effected by TESTA into Daisy’s account dates back to 4th December –value 9th December 1998, thus, contrary to the affirmation in the verdict, only a short time lapse since the opening of the account.
The money transferred from Rome arrived in Monaco on 9th December (I received the credit advice in my office on 14th December 1998) and was invested according to precise instructions given by MANGIONE in his fax of 4th December1998.
Orders for the 9 transfers mentioned here-above were clearly given on 14th and 21st December 1998, but the CFM started executing them only as from 21st December when MANGIONE & TESTA arrived in Monte-Carlo.
The delayed execution of my orders by the CFM presumes a possible prior agreement between the Banca di Roma manager (TESTA) and CFM executives: unaware of the fraudulent origin of this amount (withdrawn by MANGIONE and TESTA a few days later) I continued my work without suspecting anything of the intrigue in which I was being implicated.
 
2.8.      ACCUSATION (verdict, page 15, line 4)
Whereas Francesco IAGHER declared, nevertheless, ignoring the fraudulent origin of the amount asserting he thought it was, at the worst, an italian tax evasion product.
 
2.8.      DEFENCE.
Renato MANGIONE, on the point of becoming my client, informed me in January 1998 that he needed to transfer some money abroad with the objective of preventing his wife from having 50% of his possessions at the outcome of their judicial separation.
 MANGIONE, owner of many buildings, apartments, shops, plots of land, and a villa surrounded by a big park and situated Street Appia Antica, was introduced to me by a well-known chartered accountant in Rome who presented, under the cover of an affidavit signed before a notary public, a list of MANGIONE’s properties. (see Magnarelli’s testimony in the proceedings of the hearing of 18th June 2002).
 
2.9.      ACCUSATION (verdict, page 15, line 21)
That Francesco IAGHER himself recognised before the Police on 3rd April 2001 that he was conscious of having participated in a money laundering operation.
 
2.9.      DEFENCE.
Called for questioning on 2nd April 2001 I was arrested the following day. I was questioned many times by Inspector TIBERTI who speaks italian very fluently (see letter addressed to DIA in April 2000 by the Chief of Police in Monaco).
The interrogation, in the absence of a lawyer, was conducted principally in Italian but written in french by the inspector. Although I’ve been living in Monaco for many years my knowledge of the french language is quite limited; I therefore signed the written translation without verifying it convinced that it was in perfect conformity with the statements I made in Italian.
During my first interrogation with the examining magistrate on 4th May 2001 I became conscious of the statement produced by Mr. TIBERTI and in spite of my denial of certain declarations there-in the magistrate chose to ignore all my explanations accepting only those of the police inspector.
 
2.10.    ACCUSATION (verdict, page 15, line 25).
That 1if after having globally confirmed them before the examining magistrate he came back on his statements claiming not having understood what he was asked to sign on account of his limited understanding of the french language, it remains true that the « Advisory Board » of the Appeal Court, by its judgement of 11th May 2001, dismissed his objections recalling that, the fact put aside that he did not at any time ask for an interpreter, IAGHER had specifically declared to the police officer questioning him « I read, speak and understand french ».
 
2.10.    DEFENCE
I confirm my explanation here-above –paragraph 2.9 DEFENCE- and I remark that the « Advisory Board » in its judgement of 11th May 2001 referred to a report made by a police officer who speaks italian fluently and who conducted his interrogations in italian before writing out my statements in french.
I contest this police report because the signature appended on it is FALSE and FORGED (D44 page 2).
 
2.11.    ACCUSATION (verdict, page 16, lines 7 & 12)
That it is also revealing that Francesco IAGHER insistently affirmed all through the proceedings that he did not know Mario TESTA; estimated as untrue, this affirmation cannot be explained otherwise than by the defendant’s will to hide or veil his consciousness of the fraudulent origin of the 2,710,000 US$.
That from the documentary evidence in this case one can see that IAGHER effectively knows TESTA.
 
2.11.    DEFENCE.
I confirm this day and till my last breath that I do not know TESTA, Manager of Branch 200 of Banca di Roma.
I do not understand why this fact, repeated several times and on different occasions, was not taken into consideration when it is confirmed by many witnesses – including one of the defendants, Mrs. IOTTA, who, under cross examination at the bar on 18th June 2002, declared clearly that she only « supposed » that TESTA and IAGHER knew each other.
There is no single reliable documentary evidence in support of the verdict’s appreciation on this point.
The witness, Nadia CURTI, an employee of CFM and Mrs. IOTTA’s assistant, questioned on 7th March 2002 declared recalling (more than 3 years later) that MANGIONE and TESTA:
on arrival at the bank introduced themselves as clients of IAGHER’s office;
when they called IAGHER’s office‘s number appeared on her telephone screen.
Questioned at a time when her departmental head (Mrs. IOTTA) was suspected of money laundering and fraud, didn’t Mrs. CURTI make the above statements under emotional pressure ? Did she want to protect her boss and exonerate her from her faults ? Did she want to confirm what Mrs. IOTTA initially declared before clearly retracting under cross-examination on 18th June 2002 ? Did she want to absolve herself and/or her bank of omissions constituted by the failure to inform the Judiciary and/or the Police, or of the error of having continued the management of the money of fraudulent origin –even after having been alerted by the Banca di Roma ?
How can someone be convicted on the basis of an emotionally dictated testimony that is so unreliable –without taking other evidences into consideration ?
 
2.12.    ACCUSATION (verdict, page 16, line 14)
That Nadia CURTI, clients’ adviser at the CFM declared to The Police on 7th March 2002:
that, for her, there was no doubt that TESTA and MANGIONE knew IAGHER adding that this was specified the first time they came to the bank when they presented themselves as coming on the introduction of IAGHER’s office;
that when TESTA and MANGIONE called her at the bank IAGHER’s office phone number appeared on her telephone screen;
that when, on 21st December 1998, she called IAGHER’s office to inform them of TESTA’s request to withdraw 100 million liras from his account which was short of provision the office confirmed to her that money was going to be transferred from Daisy Ltd’s into TESTA’s account and that the withdrawal could be authorised.
 
2.12.    DEFENCE.
I confirm my remarks on paragraph 2.11 DEFENCE and observe that Mrs. CURTI’s declarations to The Police are dated 7th March 2002.
After 1,190 days the witness affirms that, for her, there is no doubt that TESTA and MANGIONE know IAGHER; 328 days after I’ve been arrested and detained Mrs. CURTI is questioned by The Police on an affair in which she took an active part.
What does she want to hide ? Who does she want to protect ? The answer is not long coming.
The information communicated to the CFM on 18th and 20th January 1999 by Banca di Roma concerning the fraud committed against the latter was not reported to any authority (judiciary, Police, SICCFIN) but the CFM continued managing the funds on MANGIONE’s and TESTA’s accounts (and she was the bank contact –see bank account statements) and on 18th January 1999 she authorised MANGIONE’s withdrawal of 230,000 US$ from his personal account n°. 30074510 (see CURTI’s signature on withdrawal slip n°. 1434 of 18th January 1999). She continued to operate this account and this is proved by the CFM bank statement of 2nd July 2000 in the name of MANGIONE – Direction Clientèle Privée-Zone 4-ON-MC (see the italian proceedings).
CURTI’s version does not correspond to the reality and therefore unreliable.
 
2.13.    ACCUSATION (verdict, page 16, line 30)
Whereas Jeanine IOTTA, in charge of italian clients at the CFM, also confirmed that in her opinion TESTA and IAGHER knew each other.
 
2.13.    DEFENCE.
Jeanine IOTTA, a CFM executive in charge of italian clients, under cross examination on 18th June 2002, responding to a precise question from my defence counsel, Mr. Bertozzi, declared that she only « supposed » that TESTA and IAGHER knew each other: she thus came back on her initial statement.
 
2.14.    ACCUSATION (verdict, page 17, line 1)
Whereas it is particularly obvious that between 21st and 29th December 1998 IAGHER transferred, on many occasions, important amounts of money into the account n°. 30078654 V in the name of TESTA at the CFM, thus certainly indicating the existence of a relationship between IAGHER and TESTA, and this notwithstanding, on one hand the denials of the accused –who maintains not having known who the holder of the account n°. 30078654 V he was crediting was - and, on the other hand, the declarations of MANGIONE and TESTA themselves.
 
2.14.    DEFENCE.
The 2,710,000 US$’s transfer in favour of Daisy was typed in Rome by TESTA on 4th December 1998 –value 9 December 1998.
On 4th December I received a fax from MANGIONE asking to be informed of the reception date of the money in Monaco and indicating two current accounts into which transfers are to be effected.
The accounts were n°. 10074466M and 30078654V, which I supposed, belonged to Renato MANGIONE.
On 14th December 1998 after receiving the bank’s confirmation of the transfer, I proceeded to the sending, the same day and on 21st December, of the transfer orders into these two accounts.
But these orders were not executed until 21st December when TESTA and MANGIONE, without my knowledge, arrived in Monaco. They withdrew, from 21st to 29th December, important amounts from their personal accounts (see bank statements in the italian proceedings).
It was only after I was arrested that I learnt that the account n°. 30078654V (indicated by MANGIONE in his fax of 4th December 1998) belonged to TESTA, someone I never knew and with whom I never was in contact.
Examining the italian proceedings from the Court in Rome –obtained by my lawyers- I was finally able to trace accurately the movements of the money which first transited through Daisy Ltd’s account and then through the personal accounts of MANGIONE and TESTA. It is also important to recall that I was on holidays as from 24th December 1998 and on 26th December I travelled abroad to return to the office only on 4th January 1999. (see Travel Agency’s letter and pictures furnished)
Another point which has been considered true concerns MANGIONE’s and TESTA’s declarations. Both of them, knowing they committed fraud and conscious of having been unmasked –as a result of the rogatory warrant issued by the Deputy Public Prosecutor in Rome, Mr. Sereni, who discovered TESTA’s personal bank account opened in Monaco- spontaneously declared that I had nothing to do with the fraudulent operation they carried out and that I have been « used » only to open a current account abroad.
Among other things, the amount of money transferred into their personal accounts was withdrawn personally by TESTA and MANGIONE within a few days without the slightest participation on my part.
(see bordereau d’operation in italian proceedings n° 29223/99 R.G. PM).
 
2.15.    ACCUSATION (verdict, page 17, line 9).
That concerning these denials of IAGHER it should in fact be pointed out that the accused did not explain why, while he keeps saying he thought the accounts 30074510 R and 30078654V belonged both to MANGIONE, he thought it necessary to break down the transfers between the two accounts rather than sending them into one account only.
 
2.15.    DEFENCE.
As I already stated on many occasions all I did at the reception of the initial transfer into Daisy’s account was executing the instructions in MANGIONE’s fax of 4th December 1998.
In this fax only two current account numbers were specifically indicated leading to the presumption that MANGIONE is the holder of both, more so that one of them is Daisy’s.
The current accounts mentioned were:
10074466M (Daisy) and 30078654V
and not 30074510R and 30078654V as stated in the verdict. Consulting the documents in the italian trial, obtained on 1st August 2002 and studied a few days later, we discovered the existence of another personal account –n°. 30074510R- in the name of Renato MANGIONE: opened on 21st December 1998 in the same branch of the CFM (notably Direction Cientèle Privée – Zone 4 – ON) it served to receive money from Daisy’s account. I must emphasise here that I knew absolutely nothing about this personal account before August 2002.
(see general conditions of MANGIONE’s account at CFM in the italian proceedings)
The probable turn of events is schematically illustrated here-below.
BANCA DI ROMA                4th December 1998                14th & 21st December 1998:
                                                                                              Iagher’s orders to the CFM.
 
                                               DAISY Ltd.                           
 
                        CFM executes orders only as from
                        21st December 1998 on Testa’s and
                        Mangione’s arrival in Monaco.
 
                                                                                                         
3rd April 2001                       29.12.1998: Testa,                 21.12.1998: Testa & Mangione
F. Iagher arrested                   Mangione & CFM staff           arrive Monaco to withdraw, and
                                               Celebrate the success of         credit their personal accounts.

2.16.    ACCUSATION (verdict, page 17, line 14).
That, as for the declarations made by MANGIONE and TESTA, it should be recalled that, as pointed out by the Advisory Board of the Appeal Court in its judgement of 18 February 2002, the singularity of Renato MANGIONE’s affirmation to the italian judiciary that he did not inform Francesco IAGHER of the fraudulent nature of the operation makes it difficult to consider his declaration as credible considering the personality of the entitled beneficiary of Daisy Ltd and the gravity of the fraudulent operation he took part in.
 
2.16.    DEFENCE.
The Advisory Board’s judgement of 18th February 2002 is based on a report that is false and recognised as such, in which it is written that MANGIONE has a bad record with the DIA for firearms related antecedents (see report in file D99 – dated 7th May 2001).
This file reveals that:
On 5th April 2001 Inspector TIBERTI asked the DIA for some information and in particular he wrote: at the moment, we have a rogatory warrant for money laundering (this is false) involving 3 people. We would like to know what antecedents they have in your records and what links they have with the Mafia: Francesco IAGHER, Renato MANGIONE, Mario TESTA (omitting the two other accused, IOTTA and CASILLO). Thanks for your cooperation………..GT.
The DIA, in a reply addressed to Inspector G. TIBERTY wrote: With reference to your request please be informed that neither in our records nor in the National Electronic records (containing all complaints and sentences and which is well known to Inspector TIBERTI since his visit to the DIA in 2000) is there any information concerning IAGHER and TESTA.
Renato MANGIONE does not appear in our records but the Police Data Bank (former electronic records) shows one single police antecedent for « firearms » in 1993. Please note that we do not know the legal outcome of this antecedent.
The DIA also wrote:
The information contained in the present document may be neither communicated and/or diffused nor used, partially or totally, in legal or administrative procedures without the prior consent of the delivering office (i.e. DIA).
Thus, in the above mentioned report:
it is false to affirm that Renato MANGIONE has a bad record with the DIA because, on the contrary, he was unknown to this office;
it is false to affirm that: at the moment, we have a rogatory warrant;
there is a serious infringement because the information furnished by the DIA could neither be diffused nor used without its prior consent.
Inspector TIBERTI cannot pretend he does not understand italian because in his letter of recommendation dated 4th April 2000 with which he was asking the director of DIA to evaluate the possibility of receiving the inspector for a training, the Director of Public Security in Monaco, Mr. Maurice ALBERTIN, stated that TIBERTI speaks the italian language perfectly.
Inspector TIBERTI’s training at the DIA took place in Rome and Naples from 18th to 29th September 2000.
As for MANGIONE it is true that the Sant’ Ipolito Police in Rome lodged a complaint against him on 5th January 1993 for possession of firearms. This complaint followed a police verification of the storage conditions of the firearms in possession of Mr. MANGIONE –a firearms' collector. In fact, during this exercise the Police found two pistols with registration numbers different from those earlier declared by MANGIONE himself and needed to inform the judiciary for further investigation. Ensuing inquiry with the manufacturers revealed visible differences in the breach of one pistol, and for the other the omission of the letter « G » was considered a simple transcription error.
Informed about these results on 21st September 1993 the judicial authorities decided to close the case without any lawsuit against MANGIONE.
The legal certificates and records on Renato MANGIONE which were issued by the Public Prosecutor in Rome and which indicate « NUL » are certainly correct.
The police report referred to here-above (coded D99) should therefore be considered « null and void » for serious substantial differences and/or deformations.
MANGIONE’s declarations are those of someone who, conscious of having committed a fraud which has been discovered, made full confession to the Deputy Public Prosecutor in Rome indicating my total non-involvement since I was contacted and used only to open abroad an account through which was to transit, for a short time, the amount coming from Banca di Roma.
(see the italian proceedings).
 
2.17.    ACCUSATION (verdict, page 17, line 23).
That the same remark is valid for Mario TESTA’s declarations made on 16th July 2001 before a solicitor in Rome by virtue of paragraph 391 of the italian Criminal Procedure Code and by which he claims not knowing Francesco IAGHER and not having ever been introduced to the CFM as a client of IAGHER’s office.
 
2.17.    DEFENCE.
In the same tune as the explanation given in Para. 2.16. DEFENCE, Mario TESTA’s declarations, made before a solicitor, is that of someone who is conscious of having committed an offence and who does not want to cause any prejudice to someone else who did not know about his fraudulent intentions and who did not participate in any way in his criminal act.
For TESTA, giving a different version of the facts (by saying that he knew me) does not change anything about his criminal situation in Italy; he therefore has nothing to gain from saying anything different from the truth.
 
2.18.    ACCUSATION (verdict, page 17, line 28).
Besides the fact that these declarations can be considered, without exaggeration, as an attempt to exonerate a « accomplice » it should be recalled that Nadia CURTI clearly stated that when Testa called the CFM he did so from IAGHER’s office and this brings strong doubts on the sincerity of the statements made by TESTA on 16th July 2001.
 
2.18.    DEFENCE.
TESTA’s declaration before a solicitor in Rome on 16th July 2001 is, by virtue of paragraph 391 a and b of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code, valid in all respects and cannot be considered an attempt « to exonerate an accomplice ». The analysis in the verdict does not seem to have any solid documentary support if we take into account the three witnesses from my office, the 3 declarations made by MANGIONE (2 of which were made before an italian judge), IOTTA’s reply during the court hearing of 18th June 2002 saying that she could only suppose that IAGHER and TESTA knew each other and thus retracting her earlier statement to the Police. The testimonies and declarations in the foregoing paragraph should rather lead to strong doubts about the sincerity and credibility of CURTI who, conscious of having held back pertinent information and documents from the Police decided to make some false statements to cover herself as well as others. While she continued the management of MANGIONE’s funds she induced Inspector Van Den Corput in error by furnishing him with a bank statement different from that of Daisy (same number but different last letter, and consequently a different account holder). By her conduct CURTI hindered inquiries in both Monaco and Italy.  (see the italian proceedings)
 
2.19.    ACCUSATION (verdict, page 18, lines 1, 6, & 14).
Whereas, also, IAGHER’s knowledge of the fraudulent origin of the 2,710,000 US$ can be deduced from his preparation of the W.M.O. invoice dated 1st December 1998 which he admitted himself before the Police on 3rd April 2001 to be fake.
That, besides, it is indeed now established that this invoice issued by DAISY LTD for a commission of 2,710,000 US$ to be paid by a Swiss organisation –W.M.O.- is a fake.
That, in fact, no such commission was owed by the W.M.O.; and that one can wonder if this organisation really exists.
 
2.19.    DEFENCE.
For reasons already mentioned on many occasions here-above (Para. 2.9 DEFENCE) that part of my statement to the police on 3rd April 2001 indicating that the W.M.O. invoice is fake does not correspond to the truth.
Yet, disregarding certain declarations in the police report, the examining magistrate considered valid only those made by the police inspector.
The W.M.O. (World Meteorological Organisation) is an organ of the UNO with headquarters in Geneva and which is holding a current account in Branch 200 of Banca di Roma. Contrary to the doubt expressed in the verdict of 9th July 2002 it is evidenced at several points in the italian police inquiry report that the W.M.O. really exists (see the Italian proceedings).
The emission of the invoice, following MANGIONE’s clear request, took place on 1st December 1998 Daisy Ltd’s current account having been opened on 30th November 1998 (and not 2nd December 1998 as stated in the verdict); the company was registered on 6th January 1998 and not 6th December 1998.
(see registration act of the company, Italian police inquiry report, Daisy Ltd’s part of the italian proceedings).
 
 
2.20.    ACCUSATION (verdict, page 18, lines 20 & 26).
That IAGHER, who claims having established the invoice at MANGIONE’s request, and who admits this was posterior to the official date of 1st December 1998, cannot pretend not having understood that the objective of this presentation could be to mask a fraudulent origin, all the less that he claims to be a chartered accountant in Italy (« commercialista »).
That the fake or forgery was, by the way, all the more evident for a specialist of his quality that this invoice dated 1st December 1998 bears the indication of a bank account number which was not attributed until the following day since DAISY LTD’s account at the CFM was opened only on 2nd December 1998 DAISY LTD itself being constituted on 6th December 1998.
 
2.20.    DEFENCE.
The assertions in the above accusation are totally erroneous.
Detained since 3rd April 2001 it was only after the reception of the entire proceedings in the italian trial that I can affirm this error documentary evidence for which is at the disposal of this court.
During the court hearing of 18th June 2002 I could not firmly refute this accusation because these documents, requested for many times by my counsel, Mr. Bertozzi, were never put at my disposal.
Thanks to the italian judiciary who, granting the request of my italian counsel, Mr. Felici, furnished us, on 1st August 2002, with a copy of the entire case file concerning the criminal procedure n°. 29223/99 R.G. PM –by virtue of Article 116 of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code. In fact, the magistrate in charge of the preliminary inquiries, Mr. Giovanni DE DONATO, estimated that it was necessary for me (for my defence and considering my long detention period) TO OBTAIN A COPY OF THE ENTIRE FILE SINCE I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AFFAIR.
This being said, after examining the case file we can now assert with certitude that:
Daisy Ltd. was constituted on 6th January 1998;
its current account at the CFM was opened on 30th November 1998;
on 1st December 1998 an invoice was duly established.
The coherence of these three operations shows that I am an italian chartered accountant.
 
2.21.    ACCUSATION (verdict, page 19, line 22).
Whereas thus, Francesco IAGHER who, as it has been established, knew both MANGIONE and TESTA, and of whom it has already been said that the procedure adopted in the present matter was radically different from that which he normally follows in his offshore and « tax optimisation » practices, could not but be conscious of the illegal origin of the 2,710,000 US$ which he had in his possession and which he used, at least in part, till 3rd February 2000 for various bank transfers and deposits.
 
2.21.  DEFENCE.
Whereas the idea that I knew TESTA has never been documented and as, in the same way, the procedure followed was not any different from my usual offshore and « tax optimisation » practices, it was many times repeated that I had neither the knowledge nor the consciousness of the illegal origin of the transfer credited on Daisy’s account.
The use of the Daisy bank deposit of 9th December 1998 (my office was informed only on 14th December 1998 at the reception of CFM’s credit advice) had earlier been specified in MANGIONE’s fax of 4th December in which he clearly indicated how the amount was to be distributed.
On 14th and 21st December 1998 I started the « virtual » management of the amount -« virtual » because my orders were not executed by the CFM (probably because there had been prior contacts between TESTA and CFM senior employees in charge of italian clients).
It was only when TESTA and MANGIONE arrived in Monaco that the orders were executed –to enable them make withdrawals (from 21st to 29th December 1998).
I therefore could not manage the money since, among other things, it has gone through TESTA’s and MANGIONE’s personal accounts on which I had no proxy.
This account management role was however played with alacrity by IOTTA and CURTI, at least till the year 2000 (see account statement and other documents in the recently acquired italian trial file); they managed TESTA’s and MANGIONE’s personal accounts n°. 745100R and n°. 78654V in spite of their awareness of the illegal origin of the funds.
(see Banca di Roma’s letter of 20th January 1999 –Report by the Criminal Investigation Department of the Italian Police).
 
2.22.    ACCUSATION (verdict, page 20, line 1).
That the knowledge of the fraudulent origin of the money is sufficient to characterise the offence of receiving and concealing since it is established in statute law that the culpability of the receiver does not imply his knowledge of the exact nature of the offence by which the object was acquired not more than that of the exact circumstances of the initial offence or of the victim of the illegal act.
 
2.22.    DEFENCE.
As in the Italian Criminal Code so it is in Monaco that the offence of receiving money from a crime supposes that one knows the fraudulent origin of the money.
If someone has to be sentenced his knowledge of the criminal origin of the money has to be proved beyond all doubts.
The fact of having followed the dispositions specified in MANGIONE’s fax of 4th December 1998 by transmitting to the CFM indications for the distribution of the money (executed only in the presence of TESTA and MANGIONE on 21st December 1998), of having produced a duly established invoice and having earned 59,000 Ffr for my consulting services (cf. TESTA’s promise of 540,000 US$ to MANGIONE and 400,000 US$ to PEDRETTI), the false declarations made by CURTI to save her head and IOTTA’s should rather lead to the presumption that I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FRAUDULENT ORIGIN OF THE MONEY.
If in addition to this we consider the « virtual » management of the amount (14/21 December 1998) and the fact that TESTA induced me in error (article 640, italian criminal code) my TOTAL INNOCENCE appears without any ambiguity.

3.  DOCUMENTED CONSIDERATIONS.
My lord, an old italian common saying goes thus:
« Cu é surdu, orbu e taci campa cent’ anni in paci ». The english translation will give « He who hears not, sees not and speaks not lives peacefully for a hundred years ».
Well, I, Francesco IAGHER, do not want to live peacefully for a hundred years and, after having examined a part of the documentation on this trial (with innumerable inquiries), I am now in a position, unfortunately only now, to summarise certain events which were very hurtful and prejudicial to me and which, to say the least, ARE AWFULLY APPALING BY THEIR GRAVITY.
The documentary proofs obtained are attached here-to. For better explanations they are commented under 3 separate sub-headings.
 
3.1.      Falsehood and/or forgery, manipulations and supposition based convictions.
The examination of the verdict of 9th July 2002 reveals several incoherences, confirmation of police report manipulations, errors and/or blunders and at least two acts of « forgery of public documents ».
 
3.1.a.   The first falsehood is in the international rogatory warrant of 11th June 2001 addressed to the Italian authorities –file n°. H9/01 PG 2338/00- in which the examining magistrate affirms that IAGHER recognised having lent his assistance to someone by the name of TESTA.
This statement has no documentary proof since it is evident from our analysis that:
in the police report of 14th February 2001 I declared not knowing TESTA.
during questioning by the examining magistrate on 6th May 2001 I confirmed my declaration.
the idea that I know TESTA has no support in any other report or document.
To further support the fact that I do not know Mario TESTA I repeat that:
all my employees, and more particularly Tony VALLET (questioned on 12th September 2001), Patrice LAURENT (questioned on 13th September 2001) and Claudio TESSERA (questioned on 14th September 2001), replying to a direct question affirmed precisely that they did not know Mario TESTA and had never heard about him.
A declaration made by MANGIONE on 6th February 2001 (his complicity with TESTA was then not yet known to the italian police) was transmitted to Inspector Van Den Corput on 27th February 2001; in it he assumed the entire responsibility knowing he could not implicate an innocent unaware of the incriminated facts.
There are also two other declarations made, by virtue of paragraph 391 a & b of the italian criminal code and their effects, by Mario TESTA (16th July 2001) and Renato MANGIONE (7th June 2001).
From the foregoing paragraphs two questions immediately arise:
What documentary elements in this trial lead to the presumption that I know TESTA; what certitude of any relationship; from what can such a conviction be derived ?
Why is it repeated in the verdict –page 16 para. 3, page 17 para. 1, page 19 para. 2- that IAGHER knows TESTA ?
The accused IOTTA, under cross examination by Mr. Bertuzzi said she « supposed » that TESTA and IAGHER knew each other and this is different from the version in the verdict which says « she confirms that TESTA and IAGHER knew each other ».
TESTA’s name was never found in any document or file in my office, and in the different police reports in the italian criminal trial the possibility or probability that TESTA and IAGHER knew each other was never mentioned.
According to documents of the italian criminal investigation department concerning MANGIONE’s two interrogations the latter declared (against his own interest) that IAGHER knew nothing about the fraudulent origin of the amount of money.
And now it remains only the CFM employee, Nadia CURTI who, questioned at a time when her departmental head, IOTTA, was suspected of money laundering, fraud etc. recalls, 3 years later, that
MANGIONE and TESTA introduced themselves at the CFM as clients of IAGHER’s office.
When they called my office phone number appeared on her telephone screen
Was CURTI emotionally moved to make these statements ?
Did she want to protect and exonerate her boss ?
Did she simply want to support IOTTA’s earlier statement on which she (Iotta) came back at the bar during the court hearing of 18th June 2002 ?
How can someone be convicted on the basis of the testimony of a single witness who was emotionally implicated and who probably participated, with IOTTA, in the receiving and concealing of money from a fraud.
 
3.1.b.  The second falsehood is found in the police report of 7th May 2001 (in file D99) where Renato MANGIONE is said to have a bad record with the DIA in Rome on account of a firearms’ infringement dating back to 1993.
After close examination we found that:
- on 5th April 2001 Inspector TIBERTI asked the DIA for some information and he wrote: at the moment, we have a rogatory warrant for money laundering (this is false) involving 3 people. We would like to know what antecedents they have in your records and what links they have with the Mafia: Francesco IAGHER, Renato MANGIONE, Mario TESTA (forgetting the two other accused, IOTTA and CASILLO). Thanks for your cooperation………..GT.
- the DIA, on 13th April 2001, in a reply addressed to Inspector G. TIBERTI wrote: With reference to your request please be informed that in both our records and the National Electronic records (containing all complaints and sentences and which is well known to Inspector TIBERTI since his visit to the DIA in 2000) there is no information concerning IAGHER and TESTA.
Renato MANGIONE does not appear in our records but the Police Data Bank (former electronic records) shows one single police antecedent for « firearms » in 1993. Please note that we do not know the legal outcome of this antecedent.
The DIA also wrote:
The information contained in the present document May be neither communicated and/or diffused nor used, partially or totally, in legal or administrative procedures without the prior consent of the delivering office (i.e. DIA).
 
Thus, in the above-mentioned police report:
- it is false to state that Renato MANGIONE has a « bad record » with the DIA while in actual fact he has no records in this office.
it is false to affirm that: « at the moment, we have a rogatory warrant »;
a serious infringement is constituted by the use of the information furnished by the DIA for they should not have been diffused or used without its prior consent.
Inspector TIBERTI cannot pretend he does not understand italian because in his letter of recommendation dated 4th April 2000 with which he was asking the director of DIA to evaluate the possibility of receiving the inspector for a training, the Director of Public Security in Monaco, Mr. Maurice ALBERTIN, stated that Inspector Gerard TIBERTI speaks the italian language perfectly.
Inspector TIBERTI’s training at the DIA took place in Rome and Naples from 18th to 29th September 2000.
As for MANGIONE it is true that the Sant’ Ipolito Police in Rome lodged a complaint against him on 5th January 1993 for possession of firearms. This complaint followed a police verification of the storage conditions of the firearms in possession of Mr. MANGIONE –a firearms collector. In fact, during this exercise the Police found two pistols with registration numbers different from those earlier declared by MANGIONE himself and needed to inform the judiciary for further investigation. Ensuing inquiry with the manufacturers revealed visible differences in the breach of one pistol, and for the other the omission of the letter « G » was considered a simple transcription error.
Informed about these results on 21st September 1993 the judicial authorities decided to close the case without any lawsuit against MANGIONE.
The legal certificates and records on Renato MANGIONE which were issued by the Public Prosecutor in Rome and which indicate « NUL » are certainly correct.
The police report referred to here-above (coded D99) should therefore be considered « null and void » for serious substantial differences and/or deformations.
 
3.1.c.   As for the « manipulations and substantial errors » contained in the verdict of 9th July 2002 mention has to be made of certain points which, in spite of their feebleness, led to my detention for 17 months and my condemnation to 4 years of imprisonment
1/-.      On page 5 of the verdict it is stated that during an inquiry on Antonio CLEMENTE the investigators discovered that he once registered a company –Yago Ltd.- using the services of my office. This client, Clemente, was introduced by Francesco Grosoli, manager of HSBC Bank in Monaco and it was found that I was not implicated in the fraud attempt and the fake cheque receiving with which Clemente was charged. It should be noted that contrary to Giuliano Lanza’s declaration (see D1 & D2) Antonio Clemente had direct relationship with Banque du Gothard as he had clients in this same bank. Lanza also failed to mention relationship with the company Pace Enterprises Ltd. in which appear such IAGHER office’s clients as Lavorone and Vortice as well as two current accounts identified by « TICE » and « RONE » (see D209).
After examining the documents in this latter affair it comes out very clearly that I was not at all involved in it as it was managed by Fabbio Frappi Poldini and the legal agent Richard Pastor.
Besides, Mr. Lanza really took his time before communicating Lavarone’s name to the SICCFIN (see D174).
2/-.      It was stated that IAGHER had mandate for the management, on his clients’ behalf, of 17 companies with accounts in Banque du Gothard (see D7). In this police report several « substantial errors » point to ignorance about the norms guiding the management of companies registered under British law.
The 17 companies were said to have a « fictitious economic object » without prior verification of their real economic substance; yet, besides several explanations (see D43) full details about their activities and funding had already been furnished by mail (see D8).
3/-.      In the police report D7 their activities are described as illicit without any valid reason; one can therefore presume that the bank documents as well as other documents submitted were neither read nor examined but only inserted in the file without really understanding their values.
 
3.1.d.   It is important to point out in this paragraph the facts that were opportunely and deliberately « modified » with the aim of creating doubts and confusion in people’s minds.
Thus, in fact:
Daisy Ltd.’s current account was opened on 30th November 1998 (see document transmitted to Italy in the international rogatory warrant –D27- and company documents sent to the CFM) and this is contrary to the date of 2nd December 1998 retained in the verdict.
The sole proprietor of Daisy Ltd. (of Isles of Man’s rights and not Monaco’s) is Renato MANGIONE and this company was created on 6th January 1998 (see rogatory warrant and other documents submitted) and not 6th December 1998 as affirmed in the verdict (see registration act).
Documents in reply to the rogatory warrant sent to Rome were received in Monaco on 20th November 2001 and not 28th November 2001 and they consist of more than 1300 pages and not 24 pages (see D269 – D270). This strongly limited the rights of the defence with respect to the verdict of 9th July 2002.
 
3.2.      Deformed Facts.
Deformed elements contained in the verdict are very many. Going through them together we’ll find that certain documents were not analysed with the objectivity necessary for a better understanding of the real evolution of events.
 
3.2.a.   In the investigation report concerning Simona PEDRETTI, an employee of Banca di Roma, she declared having effected a prior money transfer test using the Egyptian Embassy’s current account and this contradicts the statement on page 12 of the verdict (see the report on the italian international rogatory warrant).
 
3.2.b.   World Meteorological Organisation (W.M.O) is an organ of the UNO with head office in Geneva and it has a current account in Banca di Roma: it therefore really exists –contrary to the statements on pages 12 and 18 of the verdict where it is said to be « inexistent or a fake company » (see italian rogatory warrant and reports of the Investigation Department of the Police in Rome).
 
3.2.c.   On 11th October 2000 Inspector Van Den Corput asked the CFM for information about Daisy Ltd’s current account, and on 17th October 2000 the CFM gave a reply containing a number of errors.
Daisy Ltd’s current account was opened on 30th November 1998 and not 2nd December 1998.
Only Renato MANGIONE, sole proprietor of Daisy Ltd, was introduced to the CFM.
The CFM failed to reveal to the police inspector that it had been informed of the fraud –on 18th January 1999 by phone and on 20th January 1999 by mail- by Banca di Roma who also wanted to know the whereabouts of the money then (see the italian rogatory warrant report and the italian police investigation report).
 
It should however be noted that Inspector Van Den Corput, following a mandate delivered by an examining magistrate –Patrizia RICHET, was completing inquiries on the international rogatory warrant just received from Rome. He sent the required information to Rome without verifying the documents furnished by the CFM and these happened to be incomplete, some of them being impertinent.
From the examination of the documents we received from Rome it results that:
two bank statements were submitted concerning an account having a similar number to that of Daisy Ltd but with the final letter « B » and not « M »: this account, in Australian dollars, is identified by « Service Operations Financières » without any real holder’s name.
Daisy Ltd’s semester account statement for 31st December 1998 -addressed to my office- was not included, and this would have been certainly useful to the italian magistrates and investigators.
 
By such omissions the CFM delayed investigations in Monaco, induced the police inspector in error, impeded inquiries in Italy.
 
3.2.d.   On 20th December 2000 a police report was drafted (see D16) in which was stated CFM’s failure to make the necessary declaration to the SICCFIN but the judicial authorities were not informed about it in spite of the fact that what was notified by Banca di Roma was a clear and specific criminal offence.
 
3.2.e.   In the police report transcribing CURTI’s statement (see D73) there are substantial modifications of the latter’s declarations since this CFM employee affirms that: « in December 1998 IOTTA asked her to receive two clients, MANGIONE and TESTA » while the police report mentions precisely 30th November 1998.
CURTI also declared that both MANGIONE and TESTA asked to open personal account (see D73). This declaration was omitted and it finds no support in the police report on the statements made by IOTTA (see D74) whose office is adjacent to that of CURTI, her subordinate, who claimed knowing nothing about the Daisy operation.
IOTTA pointed out that I had always indicated Mr. MANGIONE as the only proprietor of Daisy Ltd. (see documents to the CFM).
 
3.2.f.   Again, the police report of 9th May 2001 concerning CURTI (D73) was found to be full of contradictions, so much that it should be noted that the alleged phone call of 21st December 1998 has no support at all if we consider that the orders which I personally gave (from 14th to 18th December 1998) for the transfer of a total of 2, 160,412 US$ would not have been given if I did not have the necessary provision for this amount –without knowing that Mangione and Testa were in Monaco on the same day (21st December 1998). The latter then both started withdrawing the entire sum from their personal current accounts between 21st and 29th December 1998: this, as already mentioned here-above is evidenced by the signatures on withdrawal and deposit slips (see italian rogatory warrant documents).
 
3.2.g.   I do not understand how it would have been possible for me to know of the fraudulent origin of the operation  (see verdict, page 18) from the establishment of the Daisy invoice addressed to W.M.O. (an existing organisation holding a current account in Banca di Roma).
 
3.2.h.   The establishment of the invoice, at Mangione’s demand, is dated 1st December 1998 Daisy’s account having been opened on 30th November 1998 (and not 2nd December 1998). Daisy Ltd. was constituted on 6th January 1998 and not 6th December 1998.
 
3.2.i.    On 1st April 1999, on Mangione’s behalf and unaware of Banca di Roma’s contact with the CFM (18th and 20th January 1999) a deposit of 1,600,000 US$ was effected on EYAEL Ltd’s account at the Banque du Gothard in Monaco. For this deposit, approved by the bank manager Mr. CASILLO, the corresponding cash withdrawal slips from two Monaco banks (CFM and Comptoir Monégasque de Gestion) were produced, and the money was used for company and estate transactions and for the constitution of guaranties with the HSBC Bank etc.
            Suspecting the operation as doubtful, Giuliano LANZA, already mentioned here-above, decided to inform the SICCFIN (see D56).
            From the police report we observed there was a disagreement between Casillo, the Manager, and Lanza, his subordinate, about the management of the bank: becoming deeper, this later led to the dismissal of Casillo.
 
3.3.      Undisclosed Facts –to hide proofs and mask responsibilities.
 
The police report summary of 26th March 2001 (see D24) appears to have ignored a number of important facts
 
Daisy Ltd’s current account was opened on 30th November 1998 and not 2nd December 1998.
On 4th December 1998 Mangione sent me a fax with instructions on the distribution of the amount of money into two current accounts clearly indicated by their numbers (see documentary proof in file)
Between 21st and 29th December 1998 Mangione and Testa, through CFM employees, effected several deposits on their personal current accounts.
On 14th December 1998 I sent a fax to the CFM ordering the following transfers according to Mangione’s instructions.
14th December: 568,000 US$,  executed 21st December 1998,
15th December: 450,000 US$,  executed 22nd December 1998,
16th December: 450,000 US$,  executed 23rd December 1998,
17th December: 300,000 US$,  executed 28th December 1998,
18th December: 392,412 US$,  executed 29th December 1998.
- On 21st December 1998 I sent a letter and a fax to CFM for the following transfers:
22nd December: 75,000 US$,  executed 23rd December 1998,
23rd December: 100,000 US$,  executed 23rd December 1998,
24th December: 100,000 US$,  executed 28th December 1998,
26th December: 250,000 US$,  executed 29th December 1998.
 
On 21st December 1998  (see the italian rogatory warrant and the inquiry reports by the italian investigation police) Mario TESTA, the disloyal Banca di Roma manager and brain behind the fraud, and Renato MANGIONE (his former school mate) arrived in Monaco and, without my knowledge, started withdrawing money from their personal accounts (see international rogatory warrant documents in the italian trial and signatures on CFM withdrawal slips).
 
IOTTA, in charge of italian clients, and perhaps also CURTI (her co-worker) most probably did not get my transfer orders implemented by the employee who normally prepares corresponding slips by hand but, expecting the arrival of the two criminals –TESTA and MANGIONE- at the CFM on 21st December 1998, they delayed their execution till that date (see police report on CURTI, italian police investigation report, and signatures on CFM withdrawal slips).
 
For supplementary proof the Court May wish to confirm MANGIONE’s and TESTA’s presence in Monaco during this period by verifying the registers of hotels in Monaco and neighbouring towns in 1998 and 1999.
 
On 24th December 1998 I celebrated Christmas with my employees in the office before closing down for holidays.
 
On 26th December 1998, accompanied by my wife, I travelled abroad till 2nd January 1999 (see photographs and Travel Agency’s letter).
 
From 8th to 18th January 1999 Testa and Mangione continued withdrawing money from their personal current accounts.
 
On 18th January 1999 the CFM received a phone call notification from Banca di Roma announcing the fraud committed against it and on the same day, unbelievably, the CFM authorised all the same Mario TESTA’s withdrawal of 1,200,000 US$ (see rogatory reports and bank documents in file).
 
On 20th January 1999 the CFM received the letter from Banca di Roma confirming the phone call of 18th January and in spite of this, incredible once again, the CFM, on 25th January 1999, sold bonds worth 114,035 US$ thus continuing the management of money from undoubtedly fraudulent origin having been officially informed by the italian bank.
This aspect of the offence was concealed from the SICCFIN but not from the judicial authorities that could have started immediate inquiries.
 
CFM employees thus voluntarily impeded investigations in Italy and in Monaco.
(see Banca di Roma’s letter and italian police investigation report).
 
4.         CONCLUSIONS.
My Lord, Honourable Magistrates, Mr. Prosecutor, after having gone through the entire investigations with you I wonder why I am in this courtroom, why I was arrested, why I was sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment.
 
In this trial were committed falsehoods, manipulations, deformation and omission of facts aimed at masking proofs and responsibilities with the only objective of justifying my arrest and the efficiency of the criminal investigation police which conducted inquiries under the authority of an examining magistrate acting with the thirst of his absolute power on a man who he willingly and consciously sent into and maintained in detention without proof, but only to satisfy a hidden horrible instinct, and also for the expected popularity from mass media’s coverage, at home and abroad, of the complexity of the inquiry and the « diligence » demonstrated in the course of proceedings; and finally, the build-up of a paradoxical theorem based on a false reality and, more appalling, modified at will. All these lead to the presumption that those who conducted this inquiry constitute a SERIOUS SOCIAL DANGER.
 
Well, My Lord, Honourable Magistrates, with confidence in the justice of this Court, yet recalling a well-known Latin saying « repetita juvant » I summarise here-below the main points which, in my opinion, should lead, at least, to the presumption of my complete innocence.
- The co-defendant, IOTTA, under cross-examination during hearing on 18th June 2002 confirmed that the idea that TESTA and I knew each other was only « a presumption ».
- The documentary proofs and declarations in this trial show that the witness CURTI is contradicted by IOTTA.
- As proved by documents in this trial Daisy Ltd. was constituted on 6th January 1998 and not 6th December 1998, and its current account at the CFM was opened on 30th November 1998 and not 2nd December 1998.
- Testimonies given by my employees, and by MANGIONE and TESTA, as well as Daisy Ltd’s bank and administrative documents prove that I do not know TESTA.
- The knowledge in Monaco of the existence of this fraud dates back to 18th January 1999 when Banca di Roma informed the CFM of the prejudice it suffered. The CFM concealed this information from competent authorities and, ignoring Banca di Roma’s request, continued the management of funds then known to be of illicit origin; it did not inform the criminal investigation police that it was already aware of the fraud; in short, it kept silent.
- Neither before nor after the passage of the funds in Daisy’s account did I know of its illegal source; on the contrary, the CFM, formally informed about the fraud, continued the management of the money.
- I am not indicted in the italian trial process; therefore, I AM NOT IMPLICATED IN THE INCRIMINATED FACTS.
- My knowledge of the french language being very limited I have no mastery of the various meanings attributable to its terms and terminologies. The difficulty for me resides in the fact that I think in italian and speak in french –a language which I find very difficult and rather inaccessible.
- Testa and his accomplice, Mangione, made use of the structure of Daisy Ltd. –of which Mangione was the rightful proprietor and beneficiary, and the only reference point in the bank. In spite of the fact that the CFM knew about the illegal origin of the funds since 18th January 1999 Mangione was authorised, on the same day, a cash withdrawal of 230,000 US$ while the sum of 1,200,000 US$ was paid to Testa.
The same CFM arranged to sell Mangione’s bonds –for 118,725.30 US$ on 18th January 1999 and 114,035.57 US$ on 25th January 1999. These operations attest to the continued management of funds known to come from a fraud.
- As for me, I did not know of the fraud committed in Rome by Testa and Mangione neither did I materially manage the funds (even if I provided the Daisy Ltd. structure) since they were withdrawn without my knowledge. My good faith is evidenced by the fact that my transfer orders to the CFM was to block the funds –in order to yield interest- on two accounts indicated for such an investment in the fax sent to me by Mangione. The CFM, probably in contact with Testa, did not execute my orders until the arrival in Monaco on 21st December 1998 of the Banca di Roma manager (Testa).
- The funds only passed through the Daisy Ltd structure –as planned and later effectively executed by Mario Testa, the disloyal bank manager who had earlier contacted his friend, Mangione, only to provide a transit foreign company for the fraudulent operation (inquiry and report of the italian criminal investigation police). The money transferred from Banca di Roma rapidly found its way into the hands of the brain behind the fraud, and of his accomplice who provided the foreign company cover for a few days only.
 
My Lord, I remain at your full disposal for whatever other information you might need from me.
 
I thank you all for your attention. 
                                                                                                                      Francesco IAGHER