Investigation Brescia prosecutor’s office on what is called “Pavia system“, one of the threads of “Clean”, he continued. After the suspension imposed by the Court of Judicial Review, which annulled the search and seizure decision carried out on October 9 by Gico of the Brescia financial police against the former public prosecutor of Pavia, Mario Vendittiand Milan prosecutor, Pietro Paolo Mazzaformer substitute player at Pavia, news emerged of a new suspect. It seems he is also on the list Cristiano D’Arenaowner of Esitel which for years carried out telephone wiretapping for the Pavia prosecutor’s office, and headed the Cr Services company which supplied vehicles for investigations in the same prosecutor’s office. The newspapers reported it Pavia Provincewho he said was named in an investigation into alleged assistance he allegedly provided to the judge.
A month ago D’Arena was the target of a search that resulted in the confiscation of a cell phone and computer, which, unlike those belonging to the two prosecutors, remained available at the prosecutor’s office, as did the businessman’s. set aside the review. “We have no regrets“, explained Omini, referring to the fact that in Mazza and Venditti the review canceled the confiscation, “because we have no particular interest in recovering PCs and phones: my clients are very calm“. The lawyer would like to underline that”as a defense we do not want to hinder the investigation. A huge amount we have provided the password to enter the device“. A clarification that aims to mark the distance with what the defense of the former prosecutor Venditti legally chose.
“We are sure we can prove it does not correspond to the disputed facts. There are no cars for sale at a profitable price. Lunch and dinner at Lino restaurant? Always paid by the judge“, said his lawyer, lawyer Andrea Omini. According to the indictment system of the Brescia prosecutor’s office, D’Arena would sell several cars to the judge at a favorable price in exchange for the contracts obtained for Pavia interception with his Esitel which until 2021 had the task almost alone. Pavia prosecutors hypothesized that the two judges may have benefited from “various utilities“in front of”commit acts contrary to his official duties“, which concerns custody”almost exclusively to the company Esitel for the rental of interception equipment and in exclusive assignment to Cr Services for the rental of cars to the extent that it does not correspond to the needs of the investigation and is intended for personal use not attached to investigative activities“.
Protests against D’Arena focused on the cars, three in total, but his defense denied that there could have been one partner:”There are no sales at preferential prices, whereas rentals made for non-investigation purposes are clearly inviolable.“.
