[ad_1]
There was a very severe law from the criminal point of view that punished with the crime of embezzlement all hoteliers who did not pay the tourist tax as owed in the coffers of the municipality where the structure was located. That law no longer exists, modified by the famous “father-in-law” rule inserted in the re-launching law, which decriminalizes this crime, but transforms it into a very high administrative penalty, with a fine that doubles or triples the amount of non-payment. As we will know after the news of the blow to the sponge about the sentence of one year and two months negotiated by Cesare Paladino, Giuseppe Conte’s father-in-law, based on this new law, an uproar was born. And with great generosity, Dario Franceschini blew himself up to act as a shield to the prime minister and claim the paternity of the law, claiming that it had been inserted and that Conte until now was unaware of its existence. Very strange, for two reasons. First: the prime minister has always boasted as a jurist that he also reviewed the commas of texts for approval in the council of ministers, which he would always do, except for the rule that saved his father-in-law. Second: Paladino, thanks to that rule, had obtained the annulment of the criminal conviction of the GUP in Rome, and his daughter Olivia kept this important news to herself without entrusting her boyfriend with joy. Sara …
But Conte’s father-in-law has double luck, because he was convicted of embezzlement for withholding a residence tax of 2 million in 5 years without paying them in the coffers of Roma Capitale, directed by Virginia Raggi. With the new Franceschini law ignored by Conte, that criminal sentence was canceled just for him (all other hoteliers were denied) with a stroke of the sponge. But the superfine in force that would have forced Paladino to pay an extra fine of between 4 and 6 million euros has not been applied, because when he violated the law that fine was not yet in force. Thus, Conte’s father-in-law has become the only Italian who can do what he wants while being above the law: the old one that was canceled and the new one that was not applicable.
The sensational thing is that this ending was also expected. And not by anyone, but by the speaker of that text in the Chamber’s Justice Committee, Eugenio Saitta, exponent of M5s. It was he who made the government put a warning in the minutes: “In the absence of a specific transitory provision, the administrative offense applies to acts committed after the entry into force of the law; If the jurisprudence qualified the provision in question as decriminalization, for the acts committed previously, since the criminal law can no longer be applied, both criminal and administrative sanctions would be excluded. “In short:” be careful because a clever tax evader tourist would cancel the criminal conviction, but the new sanction could not be applied if we did not draft a transitional rule. ”The government turned a deaf ear and wrote nothing to prevent it. And poor Saitta did well, remaining a neglected prophet. Of course, not even he could imagine that the only case that was truly above the law, as he feared, had been that of the count’s father-in-law …
[ad_2]
