On December 6, the Ministry of Justice replied to a letter from the US Justice Department dated November 29, which had highlighted the risk that the Russian entrepreneur Artem Uss, for whom house arrest had been decided on November 25, could flee, and in the response clarified that the decision on the most suitable measure was the exclusive responsibility of the Court of Appeal of Milan.
And he specified that the decided measure had been made safer with the application of the electronic bracelet.
It emerges from the answer, through a report and attachments, provided by the Court of Appeal to the Ministry after requests for clarification.
In the letter sent on December 6 by the ministry to the US Department, and sent to the Milanese Court of Appeal on December 9, it is represented that it is the exclusive responsibility of the competent Italian Court of Appeal, i.e. the Milanese one, to establish what the precautionary measure is more suitable.
And it is clarified, however, that in the Italian legal system the precautionary measure of house arrest, which in the case of Artem Uss was made more secure by the application of the electronic bracelet, is in all respects equivalent to the precautionary measure of custody in prison.
Deciding for house arrest on November 25, after the arrest of Uss at Malpensa on October 17 (he had been detained in the Varese prison), the judges of the fifth penal d '
appeal (Fagnoni-Curami-Caramellino panel) assessed that measure as suitable for containing the risk of escape, given the entrepreneur's roots in Italy with financial interests and also because he owned a house in a residential complex , purchased by his wife the previous summer.
For the house arrest he rented another apartment in that former farmhouse in Basiglio (Milan), because the property purchased was undergoing renovations.
Furthermore, as emerges again from the report of the Milanese Court, Uss had also had his passport taken away, with the order of the judges, and his wife had also started a procedure for the issue of the residence permit, after the purchase of the house, and, it emerges from the documents, he had also enrolled his children in school.
The Court of Appeal of Milan, after having decided on November 25 the house arrest for Artem Uss (carried out on December 2 when the electronic bracelet was found), could not aggravate the precautionary measure ex officio except in the case of violations of the house arrest, but the Attorney General could appeal asking for prison and also the Ministry of Justice, on the basis of the rules, could ask at any time for the measure to be aggravated, ie imprisonment.
It is a passage, from what has been learned, of the clarifications provided in a report by the Milan Court of Appeal to the ministry on the case of the escape of the 40-year-old Russian.
Artem Uss "has embarked on a path of progressive shifting of the center of his economic and family interests to Italy", has "demonstrated that he has a home" in Basiglio, in the Milan area, and "in this family situation it is no longer necessary to maintain more afflictive measure" than prison.
Thus wrote the Court of Appeal of Milan in the order of November 25 with which it ordered house arrest with an electronic bracelet for the Russian entrepreneur, who then escaped on March 22, the day after the judges had given the green light for extradition requested by the US.
A measure, that of house arrest, which, according to the Fagnoni-Curami-Caramellino judges, was "suitable for guaranteeing the possible delivery of the person to the proceeding foreign Authority",
i.e. the United States.
Also in the ordinance, attached by the Milanese Court to the clarification report requested by the Ministry of Justice on the case, the judges also write that it could not be deduced from the documents submitted by the American judicial authority - in support of the danger of escape as reported in the validation of the arrest - that the 40-year-old had "moved away from the place of commission" of the crimes alleged by the US.
In fact, the Court writes, it does not appear that "he ever went to said places (New York and the District of New York)".
American judicial authorities could not infer - in support of the danger of flight as reported in the validation of the arrest - that the 40-year-old had "moved away from the place of commission" of the crimes alleged by the US.
In fact, the Court writes, it does not appear that "he ever went to said places (New York and the District of New York)".
American judicial authorities could not infer - in support of the danger of flight as reported in the validation of the arrest - that the 40-year-old had "moved away from the place of commission" of the crimes alleged by the US.
In fact, the Court writes, it does not appear that "he ever went to said places (New York and the District of New York)".
When the arrest was validated with custody in prison (he was taken to the Busto Arsizio penitentiary), a judge of the Court had written in the provision that the danger of fleeing was justified by his "international support", by the "absence of a fixed resides in Italy" and the "extent of the sentence" that he would have had to serve in the USA.
At the end of November, then, accepting the house arrest request, the judges adopted the arguments of the defense, namely that the 40-year-old was rooting his interests in Italy, also because he had made real estate investments.
In particular, through a Cypriot company he controls another company that owns a luxury hotel in the province of Sassari.
Then the wife in June 2022 bought an apartment in Basiglio,
taken as a "first home" and with a "declaration to transfer, within 18 months, the residence" in the municipality in the province of Milan.
The defense had also pointed out that the entrepreneur, when he was arrested at Malpensa on October 17, was in the company of his wife, had been "a few days" in Milan and was "returning (via Turkey) to Russia".
According to the judges, Uss "has demonstrated that he has a home" and his "wife has given her willingness" to welcome him into the rented house, close to the one bought and being renovated.
he was in the company of his wife, had been "a few days" in Milan and was "returning (via Turkey) to Russia".
According to the judges, Uss "has demonstrated that he has a home" and his "wife has given her willingness" to welcome him into the rented house, close to the one bought and being renovated.
he was in the company of his wife, had been "a few days" in Milan and was "returning (via Turkey) to Russia".
According to the judges, Uss "has demonstrated that he has a home" and his "wife has given the willingness" to welcome him into the rented house, close to the one bought and being renovated.
The attorney general of Milan Francesca Nanni, in the context of the Artem Uss case, asked the Milan prosecutor's office for information on the seizure of two cell phones and credit cards of the man which took place only on March 13 following a US rogatory letter arrived a few days after arrest.
Uss was blocked on October 17 at Malpensa.
Remained in his cell until December 2, when he returned home to Italy, under house arrest, his phones and credit cards were returned.
This is learned in judicial circles.
