On one hand there is the “top role” that Nicolino Sarcone “covered” within the Grande Aracri gang of Cutro in light of the “recent convictions” that have been inflicted on him. On the other hand, “the persistent operation” of the clan “to which he belongs” and “the relationships maintained, indirectly, with his brothers, all affected by preventive measures”. This explains why the Court of Cassation confirmed the harsh prison sentence for the 59 year old from Cutro who ended up in the dock for having been the head of the ‘ndrangheta local in Emilia led by life-sentenced boss Nicolino Grande Aracri.
The Supreme Court has in fact declared inadmissible the appeal presented by Sarcone’s defenders, lawyers Fabio Gravagnuolo and Tania Belardi, against the order of the Surveillance Court of Rome which, last February 1, had extended the restricted detention regime governed by article 41 bis of the penitentiary system.
Sarcone’s harsh prison sentence was triggered by his involvement in anti-mafia investigations that, from time to time, severed the “tentacles” that the Grandi Aracri had extended on the banks of the Po through extortion, drug trafficking, interference in the local economy and infiltration into politics. Above all, the “Aemilia” operation that led to the definitive conviction of the 59-year-old to 15 years in prison; then there are the 30 years of imprisonment handed down to Sarcone in the “Aemilia 92” trial on the murders of Giuseppe Ruggiero, murdered in Brescello on 22 October 1992, and of Nicola Vasapollo, which took place on 21 September 1992 in Reggio Emilia; to follow, another 2 years and 8 months of irrevocable detention that were decided in the trial born from the “Grimilde” blitz and a further 8 years of prison inflicted in the “Perseverance” appeal.
The Supreme Court has established that the Capitoline surveillance judges have applied the “consolidated principle” according to which “for the purposes of extending the differentiated penitentiary regime – it is written in the order of the ermines – the existence of links with a criminal association does not have to be demonstrated in terms of certainty, it being necessary and sufficient that it can be reasonably considered probable” on the basis of “the cognitive data acquired”.