Juventus faq: what we know so far about the capital gains case and the prosecution’s investigation


What do we mean by surplus value? In economic terms, the increase in the value of an “asset” – in this case the right to the services of an actor – from the moment of purchase to that of sale, net of depreciation. The simplest case is that of a player trained in a nursery, free of charge: his sale for 10 million euros results in a substantial net capital gain. In itself, it is not a term with a negative meaning.

Who investigates the capital gains of Juventus? The Juventus club’s affairs are the subject of three related inquiries. On July 12, the Consob – the supervisory authority for listed companies – launched an inspection of the club. At the end of October, the FIGC prosecutor’s office opened an investigation file after the report of CoViSoC, the federal control commission for football clubs. In recent days, the existence of the so-called “prism” investigation, carried out by the Turin public prosecutor’s office, has finally been revealed.

Who are the persons entered in the register of suspects? Juventus president Andrea Agnelli; Vice-President Pavel Nedved; the general and financial director, Stefano Cerrato; the Advocate General, Cesare Gabasio. Three former Juventus executives are also under investigation: former Football Area CEO and CEO Fabio Paratici, now at Tottenham, former Chief Financial Offerer Stefano Bertola and his predecessor Marco Re.

What are the crimes alleged by investigators? In the first search decree, various offenses are mentioned. Agnelli, Nedved, Paratici, Re and Bertola are under investigation, ongoing between them, for the case referred to in art. 2622 of the Italian Civil Code, which governs the offense of “false corporate communications of listed companies” in relation to the financial statements ended June 30, 2020. Agnelli, Nedved, Paratici, Bertola and Cerrato are again subject to an investigation for the same offense. compete with each other. relating to subsequent financial statements, closed on June 30, 2021. For the offense of “Issuing invoices or other documents for non-existent transactions”, provided for by art. 8 of Legislative Decree no. 74/2000, on the other hand, the same Agnelli, Nedved and Paratici, as well as Re (for the year 2019), Re and Bertola (for the year 2020), Bertola and Cerrato (for the year 2021). Juventus – not liable to criminal liability because it is not a natural person – is accused of the offenses provided for in articles 5 and 25-ter of Legislative Decree no. 231/2001. The new search decree, notified Thursday 2 to the Turin club, in addition to expanding the list of suspects to lawyer Gabasio, refers to the sale of Cristiano Ronaldo but does not expand the hypotheses of crime.

What transactions are reported? Sixty-two transfers were reported by CoViSoC, taking advantage of the controls initiated by Consob. Of these, forty-two concern Juventus. The other “components” concern the transfer of Victor Osimhen from Lille to Naples and the commercial axis established between Parma and Pescara. It is unclear whether the forty-two transfers involving Juventus are currently under investigation. The first search order mentions, by way of example only: the exchange with the Olympique de Marseille concerning the young Aké and Tongya; the exchange with Barcelona concerning the young Marques Mendez and Pereira Da Silva; the purchase of Nicolò Rovella, near the expiration of the contract, for 18 million euros with the simultaneous sale to Genoa of young Portanova and Petrelli, for a total transaction value of 36 million.

Are there other companies involved in the investigation? At present, Juventus – with its former or current managers – is the only club that we know. The transactions reported by CoViSoC concern a total of eighteen companies, Italian or foreign.

What does sports justice provide in the event of fictitious capital gains? The benchmark standard is that provided for in article 31 of the Sports Justice Code, entitled “management and economic offenses”. Is punished as well as by the competent authorities in matters of issuing UEFA and FIGC licenses, or providing false, reluctant or partial information ”. In addition, “behavior aimed in any case at evading federal regulations in matters of management and economy as well as the non-execution of decisions of the competent federal bodies in the matter” are also illegal. The penalties vary according to the infractions observed: they range from a fine with warning to exclusion from the championship in the event that the infractions were such as to allow registration.

What happened in the background? The question of capital gains, the use of which has grown exponentially in recent years, has often ended up in the crosshairs of the competent authorities. The only two precedents in which clubs have been sanctioned date back to 2008 and 2018. In the first case, Inter and Milan, whose leaders were acquitted at the level of ordinary justice “because the fact does not constitute an offense », Closed the case. that the players featured with a fine of € 90,000: this was the exchange, with valuations deemed “inflated”, of certain players of their respective Primaveras. In 2018, however, Chievo Verona was punished with three penalty points and three months of inhibition for President Campedelli – the prosecutor’s request was for fifteen points and thirty-six months of inhibition – for one more round – fictitious values ​​with Cesena, in the meantime. failed. In the case of the Clivense club, the Federal National Court found that changes in the workforce indicating a value greater than the actual value had played a role in the registration for the championship for the seasons 2015/2016, 2016/2017 and 2017 / 2018.

Who was heard by the investigators? The Turin public prosecutor’s office has started its own hearings of persons informed of the facts. The first was the current director of football, Federico Cherubini, followed by director general Maurizio Arrivabene and Paolo Morganti, head of football operations. Re and Bertola were then summoned: both made use of the right not to answer. Finally, the head of the youth sector, Giovanni Manna. As far as we know today, Piedmont prosecutors have yet to decide whether they will question the current Juventus leaders under investigation.

Who is the super Stasi consultant? The accountant Enrico Stasi, who over the years has worked as curator in various investigations of the Turin prosecutor’s office, is confronted for the second time with the accounts of Juventus. The first dates back to 2006, when magistrates asked him to investigate the player contracts stipulated by the company going through the hectic months of Calciopoli. Marco Gianoglio, the deputy prosecutor who heads the “prisma” investigation, has decided to appeal to him again. Over the years, the Stasi has followed, among other things, the story of De Tomaso’s bankruptcy and the trial of Seat Pagine Gialle.

What are the most relevant interceptions? The results of the interceptions that have emerged so far – in this regard, the news that the Turin prosecutor’s office has asked the Perugia prosecutor to acquire the material gathered in the investigation into the Suarez case is not confirmed – helps build a framework in which Juventus management knew he was playing in a gray area. They range from “They asked to make capital gains” to “That at least Fabio (Paratici, editor’s note), you should make capital gains and make capital gains”. To come to the “depreciation and all the shit below that we cannot say”, the “flooded car” and the “famous paper which theoretically does not have to exist”. A new interception on this subject has appeared between the current DS Cherubini and the lawyer Gabasio: “If it comes out, they go by the throat”.

What is the “Ronaldo Card”? It is precisely this last paper, which theoretically should not exist – and it is not known why these words were pronounced – is one of the key points of the investigation carried out by the pool of magistrates of the economic group, composed, in addition to Deputy Prosecutor Gianoglio. , already mentioned, by Deputy Prosecutors Ciro Santoriello and Mario Bendoni. The reference is to an alleged secret deal with Cristiano Ronaldo, in the form of a private deal. There are at least two hypotheses: the first leads to salary arrears linked to the first period of Covid, the second to the terms of the transfer to Manchester United. Investigators are looking for it, as well as another similar agreement that would certify the existence of an obligation – and not a right as officially announced – to buy Atalanta in view of Merih Demiral’s future. Indiscretions in the press say prosecutors may summon Jorge Mendes – a CR7 agent – to find out more.

What is the position of Juventus? In a press release issued on November 27 – in which the current capital increase is confirmed – the company specified that it “works with the investigators and with the Consob” and says it is confident “to clarify all the aspects that interest them . , believing that it has operated in compliance with the laws and regulations governing the preparation of financial reports, in accordance with accounting principles and in accordance with international football industry practices and market conditions ”. The statements by John Elkann, CEO of Exor – the holding company which also controls Juventus – were of the same content on the last day of investors. On December 3, the company issued a new press release: in the supplement to the capital outlook refers to the fact that this may be at risk in consideration of the investigation. An eventuality which would in turn jeopardize the continuity of the company’s activities.


Previous Capitalism misallocates resources. Web 3 Tech can help you
Next Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax at SOAR as Sunak Snubs Hated Levy Reform | Personal Finances | Finance