Chapter  V.03 - Court verdict appeal

On 26 September 2002 the verdict had been issued in 34 pages, in the first 13 pages all mistakes, omissions and manipulations of the I° Instance were examined. Halfway the thirteenth one, he began to examine the given defence conclusions in three pages ! At the end of the twentieth page up to the twenty-eighth one, the style was changed but the form was the same, with the same declarations and motivations of the first Instance verdict. It is the case to say that this hearing was a dialogue between deaf people. Without any delay, he repeated the same mistakes following a planned score, repeating the same omissions and manipulations endorsing "consciously" Hullin and Tiberti’s ideological forgeries. At this point all doubts became certainties. It was a clear "denegata justitia". It is interesting to read some passages of the verdict to understand the discrepancy between truth and falsehood.

It’s interesting to read the preface about the Monegasque law, which says that receiving, even though committed abroad, can be punished in Monaco, even if who committed the crime such as stealing, fraud, etc.. has not been condemned yet, if  the criminal fact is expressly proved; so if the main crime falls, the recycling consequently doesn’t exist : but condemnation exists ! The condition is that all proof must not be based on suppositions, convictions, or false depositions.

On page 21 he cites the Rogatory, omitting the fact that it contained 1,400 pages and not only the 24 effectively testified. Some facts were summarized, from the documentation analysis declaring that the breach in Rome on 4 December 1998, took place in Monaco on 10 December 1998 when the sums were credited to DAISY’s Ltd account ; obviously it was not remembered that the Credit Foncier de Monaco was previously informed by telephone and through written communication by the Banca di Roma about the suffered fraud on 18 January 1999 ! They were all elements present in the Rogatory and in Inspector’s Van de Corput Verbal Trials.

On page 22 the disquisition about the charge that the receiving fraud corresponds to art. 357 in the law system in Monaco, to defalcation, and it was not considered that such upgrading must be an agreement declared by the opposite party and it is not possible to apply it motu proprio.

On page 23, even though in possession of the banking documentation, he repeated the mistake about the opening date of DAISY’s Ltd account at the Credit Foncier. From this mistake the effective date, 30 November 1998, became 2 December 1998.

On page 24, at least it was pointed out that Mangione’s sums derived from the Credit Foncier de Monaco and from the Compagnie Monégasque de Banque ! How did he deposit some cash into the code account "ITACA" of the Compagnie Monégasque de Banque even through transfer ? No investigation had been made about this fact, so it was again a planned omission to avoid an excellent "accomplice". A further discrepancy element was the deposit of $ USA 1,600,000, which amount, according to some employees’’ declarations, was from 15 to 20 millions franc to be later transformed into $ USA 2,700,000, without showing any real documentation; it was really a manipulation of the true documentation.

On pages 25 and 26, other sophism emerged about the fees invoice in favour of the W.M.O. (this time it really existed) with regard to the date and the opening account with no consideration about the documentation, a classic juridical fumus.

On page 27 mu presumed knowledge of Testa based on Curti’s declaration, was repeated again, the famous witness who was never present during both the trials. She had been opportunely hidden, to avoid having precise responsibilities when faced with Iotta’s disproved declarations ; as if it was not enough, the verdict relator omitted all proving elments, and declared that I knew of the matter about Mobutu.  

On page 28 he concluded, supporting shamelessly Tiberti’s forgery, about Mangione’s personality, disregarding the documents.

According to these elements, the Superior Court affirmed the condition of defalcation ! It confirmed the sentence in first instance. It is superfluous to wonder which elements ? The justice falsehood pantomime had played its part. In fact the accused party had never been condemned and as it was the first time in Monaco (I had no advantage about this element.... maybe because I was not a bank clerk?), obtained a reduced penalty of six months. Auter’s conclusion was considered only in part but not in the truth he exposed, maybe he understood that he had been orchestrated.