an other journalist acting like a journalist:
deepl translation (with the last sentence corrected, it got that one completely wrong):
There is one aspect, above all, that has struck defense attorneys, insiders and legal experts, and that is the fact that for Juventus (and eight of its current or former executives) a violation of Article 4 of the Code of Sports Justice (sports unfairness) has been alleged, and not already of Article 31. This is not a detail. Article 31 is inherent to administrative offenses, that is, "conduct aimed at circumventing federal regulations on management and economic matters": ranging from "failure to produce documents requested [...] by the competent bodies" to "providing false, reticent or partial information," via "agreeing with its members or paying them compensation, prizes or allowances in violation of the federal provisions in force."
Juventus has become the object of attention precisely because of the so-called salary maneuver for the 2019-20 and 2020-21 seasons, because of relations between with some sports agents, because of certain alleged "partnership relations" between Juventus and other clubs. In short, it seems obvious: as a result of alleged administrative malfeasance. And so, one wonders: why does the prosecutor not refer to this article with such a specific theme? This article which, in any case, provides for the penalty of a fine with warning (paragraph 1) or, paragraph 3, of "a fine of one to three times the amount illicitly agreed or paid, to which may be added the penalty of one or more points in the standings." And why, instead, does it assume the violation of the more generic Article 4?
The defenses are not convinced at all, and they will insist on this point a great deal, emphasizing the principle of due process and, in this case, the "principle of specialty" whereby a special law trumps one of a general nature. They will point out to Chiné in the defense briefs if not (as seems increasingly likely) in the "negotiations" that will take place to try to reach an agreement before the referral. At the latest, in the hearing in the federal court if no common ground can be found in the alternative rites (pre-deferral agreement with a 50 percent discount of the penalty, or pre-hearing plea bargaining with a 30 percent discount of the penalty).
But it does not end there. The fact that Chiné is contesting the violation of Article 4 and not Article 31 may prove to be a wild card that can also be spent at the Collegio di garanzia next Wednesday, to which Juventus has appealed arguing the illegitimacy of the 15-point penalty suffered in the capital gains trial. At the conclusion of that investigation, Chiné had referred Juventus (and 10 other clubs) under Article 31, thus for administrative offence, but then changed the charge. The Federal Court of Appeal then focused the conviction on the violation of Article 4. Well, it will be able to argue Juventus to the College: that that way of proceeding was wrong (starting with 31 and ending with 4), as Chiné himself demonstrated this by acting differently in the salary maneuver case.
Buy on AliExpress.com
