The Milan Court of Appeal has upheld the four-year prison sentence for tax evasion and money laundering for former Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies Irene Pivetti . The trial centered on a series of commercial transactions, dating back to 2016, worth approximately €10 million . These transactions involved the sale of three Ferrari Granturismos, which, according to investigations by prosecutor Giovanni Tarzia and the Financial Police Unit of the Guardia di Finanza, were used to launder proceeds from tax evasion.
The fourth criminal hearing of the Court of Appeal (judges Fagnoni-Centonze-Marchiondelli), as requested by deputy prosecutor Franca Macchia and prosecutor Tarzia, applied in the second instance, fully confirmed the verdict of the Court of 26 September 2024. Therefore, the two-year sentences, with suspended sentence and no mention, for the rally driver and former Gran Turismo champion Leonardo 'Leo' Isolani and his wife Manuela Mascoli were also confirmed .
The subsequent confiscation of over €3.4 million , funds already frozen during the investigation into the former League leader, was also confirmed. The investigation alleged that Only Italia, a company linked to Pivetti, played an intermediary role in the operations of Isolani's Racing Team, which sought to hide certain assets, including the three Ferraris, from the tax authorities (it had a €5 million debt) . The cars were allegedly at the center of a sham sale in 2016 to the Chinese group Daohe, with the aim of transferring them to Spain.
The only "goods actually sold, or passed on" to the Chinese, according to the indictment, was "the Scuderia Isolani logo combined with the Ferrari logo." While the goal of "Isolani and Mascoli" was "to conceal ownership of the assets and evade taxes, " "Pivetti's objective" was "to purchase the Isolani-Ferrari logo and sell it to the Dahoe group at a price ten times higher, without appearing personally."
According to the Prosecutor's Office, the former parliamentarian allegedly . The former third-ranking government official, according to the first-instance ruling, "having implemented a particularly deceptive scheme, in order to avoid the risk that the sums resulting from commercial transactions with the Chinese contractor would be subject to taxation, pursued his criminal intent for a long time."
