He was not an entrepreneur of reference for the ‘Ndrangheta; nor the instrument through which the Libri gang entered into the procurement of contracts and management of the food trade. With these conclusions, the Reggio Court of Appeal fully acquitted Stefano Sartiano from Reggio, one of the main defendants in the “Theorema-Roccaforte” trial, «for not having committed the crime».
The second degree judges, who overturned the very heavy sentence imposed in the first degree, accepted the defense thesis, supported by the lawyers Marco Gemelli and Pierpaolo Emanuele, and in the reasons they argue why all the charges were dropped: «The results of the preliminary investigation do not allow the Court to consider Chirico’s role as a participant and collaborator proven beyond any reasonable doubt Filippo, taking advantage of his association membership to impose his entrepreneurial activities on the territory.”
The defense work in the first instance carried out by the criminal lawyer Marco Gemelli was decisive: «The testimonies taken during the first instance judgement, where the businessmen who were clients of Sartiano excluded that there had been any imposition of fruit and vegetable supplies or construction work, clarifying that they preferred it for commercial reasons of opportunity or economic convenience or even friendship, as confirmed by the results of the wiretaps». According to the Court of Appeal, the accusatory statements of the collaborator Stefano Liuzzo who had described him as “a general of the Libri gang” referring to his alleged mafia hegemony in the construction sector in the Spirito Santo and Sant’Anna districts “cannot be considered adequately verified and referable with certainty to the period covered by the dispute”. The defense has in fact demonstrated, as stated in the “Theorema-Roccaforte” sentence, «how the interceptive results offered in response to the collaborator were made the subject of a partial and, in some ways, distorted interpretation».
Arguments for which the judges of Piazza Castello concluded: «In the face of such a seriously fragmented and equivocal evidentiary framework, which lends itself to alternative readings even of a legitimate nature, proof beyond any reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused cannot be said to have been achieved, and he must therefore be acquitted».