Chiara Ferragni has been acquitted of aggravated fraud in the so-called "Pandorogate" case, involving the promotional campaigns for the "Pink Christmas" pandoro and Dolci Preziosi Easter eggs.
At the heart of the case were alleged misleading messages spread on social media, which allegedly led consumers to believe that part of the proceeds would be donated to charity.
The Court's decision does not result in a conviction, but neither does it result in a full acquittal on the merits of the contested facts: it is an acquittal due to the inadmissibility of the crime.
What the Court decided
According to the reconstruction, the judges found the aggravating circumstance of "weakened defense" to be nonexistent, which the Prosecutor's Office had contested by leveraging the alleged vulnerability of online users. With the aggravating circumstance no longer present, the alleged fraud would no longer be prosecutable ex officio.
At that point, the withdrawal of the complaints by the injured parties became crucial: a step that led to the inadmissibility of the case and therefore to the acquittal of the defendant.
The defensive strategy and compensation
Throughout the proceedings, the defense's strategy was said to have been aimed at a dual objective: on the one hand, to settle the relationship with the injured parties through compensation and subsequent dismissal of the complaint; on the other, to obtain the exclusion of the aggravating circumstance that made the crime prosecutable ex officio.
This context also includes the disbursements and financial initiatives attributed to Ferragni during the period of the case, including fines and compensation, as well as payments and interventions to associations and projects deemed remedial. At the public level, however, the affair has had a significant reputational impact.
Scam or not? The crux of the reasons.
The question that has surrounded the entire affair remains unanswered: was there fraud or not? A clearer answer will have to await the ruling's reasoning.
Indeed, it cannot be ruled out that the Court will simply note the removal of the aggravating circumstance and the dismissal of the complaints, without examining the merits of the charges, precisely because the crime has been declared inadmissible.
The lawyers' line: "It's like an acquittal."
Following the decision, the influencer's lawyers argued that the acquittal essentially amounts to a full acquittal, as the inadmissibility stems from the lack of grounds for proceeding with aggravated fraud. This interpretation will continue to be debated, at least until the full reasons are published.
Which means "acquitted due to inadmissibility"
“Acquilta” indicates a conclusion of the trial without a conviction, but it does not always coincide with an acquittal on the merits: it may depend on procedural reasons.
“Inadmissibility” means that the criminal action cannot proceed because a required condition is missing (here: the complaint, after the dismissal).
In crimes punishable by complaint, the withdrawal of the complaint extinguishes the crime.
The aggravating circumstance of “weakened defense,” when recognized, also affects the procedural regime (it can make the fraud prosecutable ex officio).
Source EDITORIAL TEAM
Choose the social channel you want to subscribe to