The General Prosecutor's Office of the Cassation has established that the Milan Prosecutor's Office is the one competent to investigate the Ferragni-Balocco case for the affair of the designer pandori, after the conflict of territorial jurisdiction between the Milanese investigators and those of Cuneo had been raised.
The decision, as far as we know, was taken because the contracts between the influencer's companies and the Piedmontese confectionery company, in relation to the sponsorship of the 'Pink Christmas' pandoro, were signed in Milan.
The provision, which establishes Milan's competence to investigate for aggravated fraud against the influencer and Alessandra Balocco, was signed by the deputy judge of the Supreme Court Mariella De Masellis.
About ten days ago the Milanese deputy prosecutor Eugenio Fusco raised before the Supreme Court prosecutor the conflict between prosecutors over the jurisdiction to investigate the case of the Christmas cake of the company, which is based in the province of Cuneo.
The deputy Fusco, who delegated the investigations to the Economic and Financial Police Unit of the Gdf, in the document sent to the prosecutor of the Supreme Court, based on article 54-bis of the criminal procedure code, had asked to clarify who is responsible for dealing with of the story of the pink pandoro 'Pink Christmas'.
And this is because, subsequently, the Piedmont prosecutor's office, led by Onelio Dodero, also opened a twin case against Ferragni and Alessandra Balocco, CEO of the confectionery company.
In the statement sent to Rome, the Milan Prosecutor's Office also indicated the other two cases on which the spotlight was turned on by the Milanese prosecutors, namely those of the Dolci Preziosi Easter eggs and the doll, actually called "Mascotte Chiara Ferragni", produced in collaboration with Trudi.
Ferragni is under investigation in Milan for aggravated fraud also for these other two cases.
The owner of Dolci Preziosi, Franco Cannillo, is also under investigation regarding the chocolate eggs.
The Milanese investigators and investigators had considered in their act the three episodes linked by the "constraint of continuation", as part of an alleged "same criminal plan".
The Supreme Court prosecutor resolved the question of jurisdiction over the Pandoro case, while no conflicts were raised over the other two and, therefore, the Milanese investigators continue to investigate these.
The hypothesis of fraud, in general, in these cases concerns the sale of products sponsored, in particular on social channels, by Ferragni, misleading, according to the accusation, consumers convinced that the proceeds would go to charity.
Reproduction reserved © Copyright ANSA