Chapter IV.01 - Verdict analysis

Reading such verdict, it is spontaneous to wonder if it follows the common law rules  or if it had been planned according to precise given orders, handed out to have a guilty person and condemn them. All elements match with the second solution, in fact the presence of various omissions, manipulations, mistakes and forgeries, everything is proved through documentation. Before examining any point of the matter, an important statement must be made. In fact a clear mystification of facts is based on forgery, and in this aspect all Judge Hullin’s deliberate omissions and mistakes must be added; the relator’s declarations are groundless , some of them are completely false, in order as follows :

I° - Judge Hullin’s "forgery" in the international rogatory on 11 June 2001 in Rome, declared that " Iagher admitted to have given advisory service to M.Testa." He was disproved thanks to the interrogation on 14 February 2001 D26 and on 16 May 2001 D79, through those it emerged that he: "absolutely didn’t know him"; and it was confirmed by employees of the Cabinet according to the Verbal Trials D197, D198, D199 ; and by Mangione and Testa’s declarations given to lawyer Mascia according to art. 391 bis e ter. Furthermore during interrogation D79, Judge Hullin asked my lawyers if they were also Testa’s defence lawyer. Lawyer Mascia answered and such insinuation was registered in a particular way . It was obvious that manipulation was planned, in fact Judge Labbouz persisted in writing :

- on page 16 third paragraph "according to the dossier’s elements it emerges that Iagher knew Testa" which ones ? There was not any documental proof !

- on page 17 first paragraph "it was established for sure that there was a relationship" which one ? certainty given through writing and FALSEHOOD with total impunity.

- on page 19 second paragraph "that through various elements there is conviction" which ones ? ; the only sure elements were that Tiberti omitted that he didn’t find any proof about such name in relation to the Cabinet according to appointments, fiduciary situation etc.. ; further Hullin’s florilegium of deliberate omissions and his ideological falsehood.

 II° - If such relator’s convictions are based on Iotta and Curti’s declarations in the several Verbal Trials, everything was disproved during the hearing. Under interrogation, Iotta confuted Curti, her assistant (who never appeared in the Court as witness) about this acquaintance and/or introduction, confirming her "presumption", retracting what she had declared during the Verbal Trial on 16 March 2001 D28, different from what was written : " She confirmed that Iagher and Testa knew each other ".

It’s obvious that without any shorthand report, everything was at one’s own discretion . It was obvious that Iotta wanted to omit her contradictions and mistakes. From the verbal trial D72 and from the company documentation it emerged that the banking account had been opened on 30 November 1998 instead of on 2 December 1998 (it’s sufficient to read the letter and the signatures receipt, was it maybe a planned mistake ?). It was notified that Mangione was the only and lawful owner, a card and the receipts of the agreed deal at cash desk through sums transferred from DAISY’s Ltd account to Mangione’s accounts, mentioned as follows : Operation DAISY/Mangione, signed by the employee F. Karine ; this element had been intentionally omitted, during the verbal trial D72 J. Iotta declared that Mangione didn’t represent any economic interest for the bank ! Examining the banking documentation in dollars and euro's, it emerged that on 4 January 1999, he set up a fund at the amount of $ 510,000, on 13 January he contracted obligations for a value of $ 118,725.30 and $ 114,035.57, definitely something to think about.

III° - A further essential aspect emerged from Judge P. Richet’s first investigation, who was at the Court in Monaco, who starter the inquiry and conferred investigations on Police Inspector A. Van de Corput. From examination of Verbal Trials it emerged that Van de Corput had pointed out the precise responsibilities in fraud which took place at the Banca di Roma. In fact when faced with formal requests on 11 October 2000 to the Credit Foncier de Monaco, in the answer D19 several mistakes and omissions emerged. From a proof verification it emerged that on 18 January 1999, the Banca di Roma informed by phone the Credit Foncier de Monaco about the suffered fraud, later confirmed through registered letter. On 18 January 1999 the Credit Foncier de Monaco , even though it knew the criminal fact, deposited cash for over 50% of the amount. This is according to a magistrate’s declaration, which was eked out by the French magistrate in the case of the shortcoming’s of the magistrate in Monaco. The omission of the art.434-1 is evident, which says : “Anybody who knows of a crime which it is possible to avoid and whose effects it is possible to restrict..omissis” is penalty punishable, but not in this case, even though the bank knew the crime, and it was informed by phone and even through written communication from the Banca di Roma which had discovered such fraud, and did nothing to restrict or to prevent its effects, and it was not declared even though the police inspector Van de Corput asked for it formally.

IV° - At the main fact about the activity appurtenances of the Cabinet, and according to laughable investigations, the relator demonstrated that documentation had never been read, in fact :

- Mr. A. Clemente, client of the Cabinet introduced by F. Grosoli, who was a clerk at the H.S.B.C., for whom the YAGO ltd had been founded. He already had his clients and his accounts at the Banca del Gottardo, and not because he had been introduced by the Cabinet, as "wrongly " declared by G. Lanza  (D1 e D2).

- G. Lanza (D209), always "wrongly", confirmed relationship between the Pace Enterprise Ltd , according to two code accounts, the TICE and RONE ones, in name of Mr. S. Iavarone and Mr. C. Vortice. From reading the acts it was clear that they had nothing to do with the Cabinet, as they were handled by Mr. F. Frappi Poldini and Mr. G. Pastor : Mr. Lanza was not in the same hurry  to give a declaration to SICCFIN, as was declared in the Verbal Trial D174. But the funniest fact was what Judge Hullin wrote in the Ordonance on 10/09/2001, more precisely that I closed this account 48 hours after my arrest ! A real false declaration.

- At the Banca del Gottardo it was proved that I had proxy for 17 companies according to English, Irish law,etc. (D7). Without any proof such companies were defined "social fictitious objects". This was the proof that there was not any knowledge about the handling of foreign companies, their balances and rules. He defined them as a mechanism used for "recycling"; it was obvious that for Tiberti, handling sporting professional cycling groups, image rights of famous actors, maritime and trade companies, estate agencies etc., were not economical activities!  Even the company name was not reported exactly ,as emerged reading the act , if only showed names of unknown entrepreneurs , omitting the names of the "known" ones ! I was very clear that he had not read documentation which was in the Cabinet, there were no omissions and everything was declared  ! He didn’t know the meaning of fiscal planning.

According to what until now declared, it clearly emerges that everything was planned, it’s enough to consider the great mistakes, which prove that documentation hasn’t been read and examined, and that truth has been deeply distorted, and all declarations provoked irresolution, as follows :

- Page.5.3 Deposits at the Banca del Gottardo, had always been justified in their  origin and activity. Administrative and contractual documentation was available in the files, and the obvious manipulation of truth documentation is evident in Tiberti’s Verbal Trials, which clearly show the bad intention to mystify and he emerged ignorant in the matter.

- Page.7.2 The deposited sums at the Banca del Gottardo, which were handed by R. Mangione; as to the amount of $ 1,600,000, to justify its origin, the withdrawal receipts from the Credit Foncier de Monaco and from the Compagnie Monegasque de Banque, were presented. About the last one there was total omission in the investigation and trial. From the above-mentioned receipts, it emerged that Mangione was the owner of the account and that there wasn’t any relationship with Testa, that he was a total stranger.

- Page.8.2 There weren’t any explicit questions to Iotta to show a cash withdrawal, but on the contrary to avoid the credit transfer charges.

- Page.10.4 He mentioned Hullin’s International Rogatory in Rome, D269 and D270, consisting of 24 pages (we discovered later that they were over 1,400 pages!).

- Page.10.5 He mentioned that inquiry had been carried out in a particular way, and this simply shows deep bad-faith.

- Page.11.1 "to know that a company in Monaco was on reserve" ; it happened even through DAISY’s documentation it emerged that it was under Isle of Man law system, that it was founded on 6 January 1998, that Mangione was the owner, and so it was not a company founded in Monaco on 6 December 1998; it was a very evident mistake.

- Page.11.2 "And not the Egyptian Embassy as Pedretti wrongly declared" ; it was evident that rogatory hadn’t been read  or according to her interpretation, she had declared to have made a transfer to the Egyptian Embassy. This is the result of police reports n. 292223/99 R.G. PM and n. 20668/99, and she had not done it by mistake.

- Page.12.5 Documents hadn’t been read again, and the W.M.O., the United Nations Organization and client of the Banco di Roma, were defined as false companies !

- Pages.14.1,2 and 3 Some "bordereaux di cassa" which were regularly signed as Mangione ordered , were defined "wrongly named" and no plausible explanation was given .

- Page.14.4 From banking documentation it emerged that the account was opened on 30 November and not on 2 December 1998.

- Page.14.6 Sums came from the Credit Foncier de Monaco and from the Compagnie Monégasque de Banque, as proved through Mangione’s cash withdrawal receipts.

- Page.15.1 To have proxy on an account allows one to have money at disposal when there is a real owner !

- Pages.15.5 and 6  Even though it was many times repeated that Verbal Trials didn’t correspond to the declarations, he carried on in his way.

- Pages.16.2 and 3 The will not to admit the truth was evident, and  the will to demonstrate to know Testa, which was disproved even with concrete proof.

- Pages.16.4,5 and 17.1 As I didn’t have the shorthand report of the trial, he reported the more convenient one for him. In fact from Iotta ‘s interrogation in which she disproved Curti, he referred to the contrary.

- Pages.17.3 and 4  Mangione’s personality was defined as of "doubtful morality" according to Rag. F. Magnarelli’s declaration, his business consultant in Rome. About his Criminal records there wasn’t any mention. Although the two verbal trials which were written by Judicial Authority, two declarations given to lawyer Piano in Milan and to lawyer Mascia in Rome, could he consider that such declarations were credible considering Mangione’s personality? ; about this particular aspect, we discovered later why. Tiberti during a verbal trial had perpetrated "a forgery" about a D.I.A. background proceeding, which declared that Mangione didn’t appear. He declared exactly : "this person was known by the police in a negative way". The relator carried on supporting that such declarations’ purpose was to remove an "accomplice" ! According to Curti ‘s declarations which were disproved from the facts and disproved by Iotta ;  Curti hadn’t any possibility of denying it.

- Page.18.1 As at pages.15.5 and 6 there was no consideration about the given declarations as they were considered superfluous .

- Page.18.3 It was a laughable situation, to write if the W.M.O. really exists. Obviously the rogatory’s documentation had been read superficially.

- Pages.18.4 and 5 Considering the banking and company documentation, the chronology of operations is wrong, starting from the opening of the account on 30 November 1998 instead of 2 December 1998, the fees receipt resulted to be on 1 December 1998.

Apotheosis is declared on page.19, "According to the given elements, it’s the Court’s conviction", and mistakes, manipulations, omissions and falsehood : everything was supported.

 It was obvious that this convenient verdict  was organized with the purpose of "creating" a guilty person,  omitting and  changing any element to cover the responsibilities of those who knew but who kept silent, and carried on in handling the matter.