The "emphasis of the charitable purpose" in the promotional campaign for Pandoro Pink Christmas, "amplified by the means of communication" used, including social media, led "consumers into error", who "believed", through the purchase of the sweet at more than 9 euros compared to "around 3.68 euros" for the "traditional" one, to "contribute to the charitable purpose", the "seriousness of which was also guaranteed by the credibility of an influencer with around 30 million followers", i.e. Chiara Ferragni.
The General Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court wrote this in the decree with which it assigned the investigation to Milan.
The deputy prosecutor also writes that the Court of Cassation "has recently stated that lying alone is sufficient in itself to integrate the constituent elements of the crime of fraud", being a typical form of "deception".
In the decree, the Supreme Court judge also explains that from the analysis of the IT material, acquired by the Gdf, it appears that the "communication strategy" for the sale of that pandoro has "always been shared between the subjects involved in the affair".
And "in the intentions of the parties the desire to link the amount of the donation to the sales" of the dessert never seems to emerge.
Fabio D'Amato, manager and close collaborator of Chiara Ferragni, is also under investigation for aggravated fraud for the pandoro and Easter eggs cases in the investigation by the Milan Prosecutor's Office.
This is what emerges from the ruling of the Court of Cassation on the territorial jurisdiction of the Milanese prosecutor's office to investigate.
The "profit" from the alleged scams reported to Chiara Ferragni for the cases of the Balocco pandoro, the Dolci Preziosi Easter eggs and the Trudi doll, also "consisted in the media strengthening of the influencer's image", because the entrepreneur earned "from growing consensus obtained by conveying a self-representation closely associated with personal commitment to charity".
This is what is supported by the Milan Prosecutor's Office, as stated in the provision of the Supreme Court prosecutor on territorial jurisdiction.
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.
There are "external indications, of an unequivocal nature" on a "unitary planning, within the same criminal plan" of the alleged scams on the pandoro, Easter eggs and doll cases contested against Chiara Ferragni, considering the "unitarity of the push to crime", the "analogy of the 'modus operandi'" and the "time lapse" between the episodes.
The Supreme Court prosecutor writes this in his provision, while clarifying that he did not establish Milan's competence to investigate on the basis of this criterion.
In all three cases, we read, Ferragni published posts, stories and "misleading videos" for consumers on social media.
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