‘Astonished’ Napoli attorneys reiterate that the concerning negotiations to signal Victor Osimhen in 2020 present no ‘illegal scheme.’
La Repubblica newspaper printed on Wednesday investigative paperwork associated to Napoli’s negotiations to signal Nigerian ahead Osimhen from Lille in 2020.
Commercial
Napoli: ‘No illegal scheme’
NAPLES, ITALY – MAY 26: Aurelio De Laurentiis, President of SSC Napoli, celebrates the victory of Serie A TIM through the SSC Napoli Trophy Parade on Could 26, 2025 in Naples, Italy. (Picture by Francesco Pecoraro/Getty Photographs)
The FIGC Prosecutor has already cleared the Partenopei, however President Aurelio De Laurentiis and CEO Andrea Chiavelli have been requested to face trial for alleged false accounting in 2019, 2020 and 2021.
Commercial
“No illegal scheme emerges, however slightly the traditional dynamics of negotiations, associated to the acquisition and sale of soccer gamers, a psychological course of within the sector, devoid of any criminally related elements,” they stated in an announcement printed by
Napoli attorneys stated they have been “astonished on the “publication of investigative paperwork, which, by their nature, ought to have remained confidential” and whose disclosure “explicitly violates the prohibition established by legislation, contravening the ideas of confidentiality and the safety of the suitable to defence.”
Napoli: Pompilio’s message ‘extracted from a wider conversational textual content’
Juventus Soccer director Cristiano Giuntoli (Picture by MARCO BERTORELLO / AFP) (Picture by MARCO BERTORELLO/AFP through Getty Photographs)
Commercial
They added: “As additional proof of the whole irrelevance of the statements cited within the article for the needs of the accusations, it needs to be famous that the identical people [Pompilio and Giuntoli] talked about by the journalist have already been extensively questioned by the Public Prosecutors, solely as individuals knowledgeable of the info. They supplied exact, clear and convincing explanations, adequate to exclude any evidentiary relevance of these remarks.”