[ad_1]
Aníbal Pinto, former lawyer of the author of Football Leaks Rui Pinto, decided to call 12 witnesses to be heard during the trial that begins next Friday, in which he is accused of co-authorship of a crime of extortion in the tentative way. . Half of these witnesses are inspectors of the Judicial Police (PJ), according to the defense of the lawyer, to which the Grandstand Express had access.
Rui Pinto’s former lawyer is accused of having participated in the attempt to extort the Doyen fund in 2015, days after the documents and contracts of the company, then led by Nélio Lucas, were published on the Football Leaks blog, created by Rui Pinto under the Identity of Artem Lobuzov.
The Public Ministry accuses Rui Pinto of attempted extortion for having suggested to Nélio Lucas between half a million and one million euros to end the revelations about Doyen in Football Leaks. Rui Pinto has stated on several occasions that the contacts maintained with Nélio Lucas were only intended to test the entrepreneur to know how far he was willing to go to stop the publications and understand the real value of this information.
Aníbal Pinto considers in the defense of the accusations made against him that the operation that the Judicial Police launched in October 2015 to record a conversation between him, Nélio Lucas and the latter’s lawyer, Pedro Henriques, was illegal. It is recalled that it was at this meeting, in the A5 service area, in Oeiras, that Aníbal assumed that he had represented the blog’s author in a process that had involved a diversion of money from bank accounts in the Cayman Islands, which led to authorities targeting the Football Leaks investigation at Rui Pinto.
Aníbal Pinto’s defense decided to include six PJ inspectors as witnesses, including Chief Inspector Rogério Bravo and Paulo Abalada, Aida Freitas, Hugo Monteiro, José Amador and José García.
In the defense presented for the trial that begins on Friday, the lawyer defends that the nullity of the evidence obtained in the case must be declared due to the covert action organized and carried out by the Judicial Police on 10/21/2015 ”.
And it invokes article 126 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which establishes that “evidence obtained through torture, coercion or, in general, a crime against the physical or moral integrity of persons” is null, and that this includes “the evidence obtained, even with their consent, through the alteration of free will or decision through abuse, bodily harm, administration of means of any kind, hypnosis or use of cruel or deceptive means “.
Aníbal Pinto maintains that with the action covered by A5, on October 21, 2015, “both the PJ, Pedro Henriques, and Nélio Lucas knew that they were committing an illegality, violating, with the pertinent procedure, law 101/2001” Since “the crime under investigation did not allow resorting to covert action,” which was neither authorized by the Public Ministry nor proposed by it to a criminal investigating judge.
Aníbal Pinto recalls the events of the meeting in A5 that led PJ to point batteries to Rui Pinto (who was not present at that meeting and who remained anonymous in the Football Leaks publications). On the one hand, remember the lawyer Nélio Lucas and the lawyer Pedro Henriques arrived at the meeting half an hour before the scheduled time (4:00 p.m.), which will have happened expressly to articulate with the PJ inspectors their disposition in the restoration area in that the meeting would be held to be monitored by the police.
On the other hand, says Rui Pinto’s former lawyer, that same day, shortly after the meeting, Nélio and Pedro Henriques went to testify at the PJ. “After the meeting at 4:50 pm, it seems that at 18:30 Nélio Lucas and Pedro Henriques were already giving testimony – well, this happened without there being a call to effect in the process”, it can be read in the defense of Aníbal Pinto. .
His defense also says that “said consensus / agreement was intentionally omitted, precisely with the objective of hiding the reality that Nélio Lucas and Pedro Henriques were participating in the meeting not only with the condition, respectively, of an alleged victim and lawyer for this , but also as collaborators of the PJ, with whom they orchestrated / worked in detail on how the meeting would take place at the service station ”.
