Property deals with mafia figures and judicial irregularities: the downfall of Pignatone

Whilst the attention of the daily press and the political sphere has focused on the ‘misleading tactics’ of former public prosecutor Roberto Scarpinato before the parliamentary Anti-Mafia committee, the figure who emerges most tarnished from the Caltanissetta judge’s ruling on the Mafia and public procurement case is undoubtedly Giuseppe Pignatone, a long-standing figure in the judiciary: a judge for over 45 years, serving at the Palermo Public Prosecutor’s Office for over thirty years and coordinator of the investigation that led to Provenzano’s capture, later a senior official at the Reggio Calabria Public Prosecutor’s Office, and finally head of the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office and coordinator of the famous ‘Mafia Capitale’ investigation (which, as established by the Court of Cassation, did not involve the Mafia), retired since 2019. A career as an anti-Mafia champion that is in danger of being swept away. According to the investigating magistrate in Caltanissetta, in fact, Pignatone is alleged to have been responsible for a series of procedural irregularities and also for conduct that is highly questionable in terms of appropriateness. The first issue concerns the affair in which Pignatone is alleged to have purchased several flats from a company run by three mafia members, paying part of the sums under the table. 

Investigations have in fact revealed that between 1980 and 1983, the Pignatone family purchased 24 properties from a company (Immobiliare Raffaello) whose shareholders included three individuals already considered at the time to be ‘linked to the Mafia’, namely Salvatore Buscemi, Francesco Bonura and Vincenzo Piazza. The investigations revealed that Pignatone purchased the properties at a price one-third below market value and admitted that part of the sums was paid under the table.

But the allegations do not end there. Pignatone did not recuse himself from the investigation launched by the Palermo Public Prosecutor’s Office into the procurement contracts of Sirap, a company in which Espi held a stake, chaired at the time by Giuseppe Pignatone’s father, Francesco.

Then there is the matter of the omitted sections. In the submission to the Review Hearing of the ROS report dated 16 February 1991, Pignatone and Guido Lo Forte left the names and details of several suspects not subject to precautionary measures visible. An oversight which, according to the investigating judge, helped to alarm those concerned and compromise further investigative developments, including those relating to the Sirap line of inquiry.

In subsequent proceedings concerning the Buscemi-Calcestruzzi-Ferruzzi links, Pignatone questioned two individuals as suspects without them being entered in the register, requested a precautionary measure against one of them prior to their entry in the register and, whilst that request was pending, submitted a request to dismiss the case against all the suspects. In the same case file, the search warrants requested by the Special Operations Centre (SCO) against companies belonging to the Calcestruzzi group were rejected, despite the investigating magistrate having deemed further investigations necessary.

In the context of the proceedings concerning the Mafia and public procurement, the judge criticises Pignatone for failing to order certain searches which the investigative material provided by the Carabinieri’s ROS unit would have made it possible to carry out. Among those who, according to the decree, could have been the subject of such searches, Antonino Buscemi is also named.

As regards the overall handling of the mafia and public procurement case, the judge goes so far as to speak of “a crescendo of mismanagement”, adding that Pignatone is “the common denominator”. These words weigh heavily on the reputation of a magistrate who, for decades, has been regarded as a symbol of the fight against the mafia.

Ermes Antonucci