So far, only the names of the 67 people for whom the Catanzaro DDA has appealed the first-instance sentence issued in the “Rinascita Scott” maxi-trial have emerged. Now it is also possible to find out the reasons why the Anti-Mafia Prosecutor’s Office challenged the verdict relating to these positions. Among these, as is known, there is the one concerning the lawyer and former parliamentarian Giancarlo Pittelli, sentenced in the first instance to 11 years for external competition in mafia association and disclosure of official secrets, the latter charge for which the colonel of the Carabinieri was also sentenced to 2 years and 6 months George Naselli. The two were instead acquitted of the charge of abuse of office “because the fact does not exist” and with respect to this charge the DDA has filed an appeal, but has renounced doing so for the alleged beneficiary of the conduct, the entrepreneur Rocco Dolphin, considering that the investigation did not reveal any evidence beyond any reasonable doubt of his awareness of the facts. According to the prosecution, Naselli, on the initiative of Pittelli, who in turn was charged by Louis Mancusowould have been interested in the proceedings relating to an anti-mafia ban pending at the Teramo prefecture against a company attributable to Delfino, believed to be linked to the Piromalli clan, revealing the critical issues that were the subject of the checks that were underway and had to remain covered by secrecy.
In this regard, the first instance ruling, according to the DDA, would have incurred the defect of violation and erroneous application of the law by requalifying the fact but “failing to motivate the reasons of fact and law”. The Court, according to the DDA, he allegedly failed to evaluate what emerged from the depositions during the trial of some Judicial Police officers, as well as from the wiretaps in which Naselli, while on the one hand accepting Pittelli’s “instigation” and revealing secret information, on the other hand addressed the issue of the job for his son, subsequently receiving a “positive outcome”.