For the upteenth time, it's only stupid if you don't understand what objective liability is!
Not everything employees do should drag the employer down with them, you know..
Let's say you own a car repair shop and you hire some 18 year old kid who, when you're not looking, takes one of the cars that are in for repair out for a drive and then crashes into a crowd of people and kills a couple of them. This scenario is based on one of the many cases of objective liability I've studied in norwegian law, and the Supreme Court ruled that the employee had acted too far away from his assigned tasks to make his employer objectively liable.
I will admit to the fact that Moggi's actions were closer to his actual tasks than what this stupid kid did, so the cases can't really be compared fully, but the court in Naples still found that Juventus could not be identified with Moggi's actions.
So no, according to the Naples trial, Moggi's actions were not Juve's actions, and therefore, legally, Moggi can be found guilty while at the same time Juve can go free.