Chapter - II Instructions acts, manipulations and charges research

Following the International Rogatory requested by A. SERENI in Rome, Judge Richet of the Court in Monaco opened the preliminary inquiry and conferred the investigation to police inspector Van de Corput. Examining the verbal trials, it emerges that he obtained precise responsibilities through the fraud of the Banca di Roma, in fact, following a formal request to the Credit Foncier in Monaco (C.F.M.) made by an inspector of the Banca di Roma; in the obtained answers it was possible to recognize the presence of omissions. From analysis of documental proof it emerges that:

- On 19 January 1999 the Banca di Roma informed by the C.F.M. phone about the suffered fraud, and it confirmed it by registered letter on 20 January 1999, also confirmed by Iotta’s P.V. and by investigations carried on by the Prosecutor’s office in Rome.

- so the Credit Foncier de Monaco knew the criminal fact, but when faced with  police inspector’s precise requests ,Van de Corput A. – omitted - , to make it known, and furthermore gave false indications, see : bank account opening date and Mario Testa's introduction, and so on.

- He deposited over 50% the sum in cash and continued on handling  shares to one of the fraud's authors.

If the Credit Foncier had “notified " the criminal fact to the judicial authority on 19 and/or 20 January 1999, it would have been possible to find the deposits under the coded accounts on the other two banks in Monaco. But it did any mention to the SICCFIN !

The French C.P.P. and exactly the art. n. 434-1 says: “Anybody who knows a crime whose effects it is possible to avoid or limit...omissis” is punishable, but not in monaco, even though the bank knew the crime, did nothing to avoid or limit its effects, but on the contrary, continued with handling its funds. Obviously, it was impossible to accuse a bank, so the dossier had been given to a police inspector and a new judge who should have created a story ad hoc and to find another guilty person, using any means.

It was judge Hullin’s "saga"  “beginning, by juridical sense it should be defined as a preliminary inquiry, devotees of law would pale in the presence of such a statement without law contents and proceedings; they were nightmare days and pure madness, to live day by day a kafkiana situation in which the borderline between reality and absurdity vacillated without precise features; because of the chronic nature of events. On 3 April 2001, after two days at the  “Surete” without interpreter and attorney, I was in front of  judge Hullin J.C.,who pointed out that in the Principality the application of « Human Rights » didn't exist and very quickly he made me detained . I was really very perplexed about what was happening, and I didn’t understand the logical proceeding of the story, something escaped me and my odyssey was beginning. They were 409 inquiry days , three interrogations , on 4 and 16 May 2001, and on 5 October ; the examining magistrate, gave a sketchy idea about the activity basing himself on suspects without considering the type of clients and their activity, it’s clear the total incompetence to understand the mechanism of the “offshore ”  companies, in a true reality according to the fiscal and company laws such as  : VAT declaration , certified balances by the Auditors, fiscal declarations and payment of company taxes . As confirmation of the carrying out the inquiry, whose purpose was to create “something” to charge, it’s useful to summarize motivation about the different “Ordonnance” of postponement and refusal, the examining magistrate continued to create dissimulation of facts based on false ideology to reach forgeries. He shows unequivocally a persecutive will, refusing any defensive formulation even though proved by documents. As the investigation was based on preconceived form, without any proof support, and furthermore facts were manipulated in favour of a guilty presumption held by a judicial system, in view of transgression of “presumption of innocence” on the international agreement on juridical and political rights of the U.N., art. 14 point 2. The several "Ordonnance" were an anthology of mistakes, a manipulation of documents and facts and also ideological falsehood and forgeries, endorsed by institutions. Some examples:

Order refusing on 22 June 2001 : “Simulating to remember nothing to answer seriously  omissis..; reading the verbal trials in front of lawyers, who are exhaustive in front of any question, meaningless declarations.

Order refusing on 10 September 2001 : this the fury proof based on intellectual constructions and on clamorous falsehood, during a meeting with lawyer Bertozzi J.M., on 17 August 2001, when it was declared to belong to Mafia, Secret Services , P2, (a mannerism to label Italians to be Mafiosi) ; and defamation of professional activity.

But the most clamorous thing was: 

- A dubious meeting with Minister Rocco BUTTIGLIONE with his personal assistant Dr. Giampiero CATONE ; such meeting, organized by the International Association of Economists, was about  “ Human Rights ”. Very famous Italian, French and Monegasque personages took part to such meeting, mentioned by the international media and international press. It was defined in its maniacal style, being a dubious meeting with the purpose of collecting funds thanks to my participation with the C.D.U. and my belonging to Freemasons.

- Handling of banking accounts at the Banca del Gottardo, which belonged to Mr. Salvatore IAVARONE and Carmine VORTICE, and even the code banking accounts NICE and RONE, closed within 48 hours, from examination of the banking documents, it emerged that Dr. Fabio FRAPPI POLDINI was the adviser, and Gerard PASTOR was the attorney; consequently I had never known them and had never handled such banking accounts.

- Rogatory Commission in Paris for a false credit transfer. After acts verification, the account n. 24349 in name of Fiduciary Ltd, “converts” itself, for simple ideological thought, into IF FIDUCIARY Ltd n. 16322

- Relationship with DEVERINI matter, disproved by the rogatory in Vienne.

They were all unfounded elements and without any proof of truth.

Postponement Ordonnance on 28 November 2001

- “Transmission through diplomatic way omissis..” ; Rogatory Commissions had been received and registered through receipt seal on 20/11/2001;

- Relationship with DEVERINI matter, disproved through the rogatory in Vienne.

- “Funds with fraud derivation” without any proof, a simple statement based on preconceived ideas without proof.

- “He doesn’t want to explain himself on reasonable way omissis...” It’s enough to read the Verbal Trials of interrogations in front of lawyers, to be sure of the answers to each question.

- “Clients’ complaints omissis... ” ! One of Francesco Castellino, suborned through false groundless assertions.

Refusal Ordonnance on 16 January 2002

- “Funds with fraud derivation” without any proof, a simple assertion based on preconceived ideas without proof.

- “Order during closing phase, omissis.. ” when?

- “Clients’ complaints omissis... ” Only one of Francesco Castellino, through false groundless assertions.

- “A few days after his imprisonment omissis... " banking transfer to  omissis... ”; the amount of Euro 100,000.00 which were in my personal account at the Monte Paschi de Monaco, had been transfered to the Banca U.B.S. on November 2000; they were again false groundless assertions.

- “Showing determination to go away from the Principality omissis.. ” ; such intention had been disproved as several estimations for the renovation of my home were in progress, in collaboration with the architect A.D. Patrizia Rossino in Monaco and the Park Agence to obtain a rent contract at least 6 years' duration from the year 2000.

Postponement Ordonnance on 31 January 2002

- “The dossier should be almost closed in the next hours... omissis ” On 16 January was going to be closed, after 15 days it was going to be closed in the next hours.

- “To escape consequences of his criminal activities ... omissis ” which ones ?

Postponement Ordonnance on 29 March 2002

An ordonnance copy on 31 January 2002

- “The dossier should be almost closed in the next hours ... omissis ” ! 1.368 hours!  From the last postponement on 31 January 2002.

- “To escape consequences of his criminal activities ... omissis ” which ones ?

Reading motivations present in the various “Ordonnance”, it clearly emerges the plan and the will to search through all means, even mystyfing the truth, manipulating facts and without forgetting  false ideological, to find out justifications for his actions, very far from legal proceedings, according to European and international Court, which concerns with investigation subject. Everything was obtained also helped by Police Inspector Gerard Tiberti who was assigned to the “financial brigade", who really showed: a profound ignorance of the subject. From his dossiers it emerged various contradictions, manipulations, documental omissions, an apocryphal signature, and forgeries about information request at the D.I.A. in Italy (reading the documents falsification emerges), and also other groundless elements, concluding with ridiculous declarations.

At this point, lawyer Maurizio Mascia, being an Italian citizen and defence lawyer, was bringing to the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Imperia, the first charge of three formal charges for  « ideological falsehood »  ; a singular act in the justice background in Monaco. The purpose was to take back to reality a story which was a real persecution against a person.

Not yet satisfied, his personal war against me went on, while I was trying to defend myself. On 28 November 2001, thanks to a new action, he denied temporary freedom declaring that it was necessary to obtain international rogatories.The lawyer Bertozzi discovered that such rogatories had been already received and registered on 20 November 2001, this was real « falsehood» ! .

Lawyer Maurizio Mascia, lodged a second complaint at the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Imperia for « personal sequester and ideological falsehood forgery » , it was the third complaint at the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Rome. Their copy had been sent to the Superior French Court in Paris and to the French Presidency Republic. It was perfectly well known that the above mentioned complaints would have been made disappeared, and that the person in charge would have laid aside without any sequel. In fact it happened that the ex Manager of Judicial Services P. Davost , again at the French Justice Ministry, during a trial against a French judge, showed cruel and  law-abiding behaviour with regards to the Criminal Code, and on the contrary, his silence was ear-splitting for a French judge in the Principality even in the presence of forgeries.  This was the proof of the occult determination of the strong powers. That person omitted any proceeding to re-establish justice and rightful truth. It was the demonstration that powers have no control and that they are at the disposal of individual people. In fact, in the course of an inquiry no verification proceeding no verification or any verification and any consideration of the incontestable caducity of the elements emerged. Everything that was declared, emerged each time an appeal had been made. It was very interesting to understand that the acting copy was declaimed every time, it was obvious that everything was planned and that each proof had no effect. The only important aspect was their “false” truth which was based on suspicions and theories. Furthermore a particular fact must be added: Daniel Serdet asked to lawyer Bertozzi if he could have one of Testa and Mangione’s declarations. They were involved in the judicial proceedings in Rome concerning the fraud at the Banco di Roma in which I was "person who didn’t belong to the facts" proving that I was not involved in the affair, in particular Testa’s declaration, as he had never had any relationship with me. Lawyer Mascia, according to the Italian C.P. art. 391 bis and ter, on 7 June 2001 met Renato Mangione who declared my "non involvement” in the criminal affair (already declared two times in Rome).

On 16 July 2001 he met Testa who confirmed that he had never had any relationship and/or acquaintance with my Cabinet such declarations had been given to Mr. Serdet and at the same time to the attorney of the republic Sereni in Rome. Then in August 2001 he asked again to lawyer Bertozzi for documentation which proved that I didn’t have any criminal affairs in progress, or any judicial proceedings in Italy, as it was holiday time, in the same month the declarations were registered.

Such declarations hadn’t been considered, but on the contrary: they had been defined “convenient ", certifications have been omitted to keep the label of "Great Italian Bandity". This definition was Hullin and Tiberti’s favourite one.

This occult organization had already defined the story, as it was at its conclusion.