Prosecutors have requested that the case against Sala, Boeri and Catella in the investigation into urban planning in Milan be dismissed: “There is no evidence of corruption”

The Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office has requested that the case against Mayor Giuseppe Sala, former Councillor for Urban Regeneration Giancarlo Tancredi, architect Stefano Boeri and Coima CEO Manfredi Catella – all under investigation as part of the wide-ranging urban planning inquiry – be dismissed. A motion to dismiss the case has also been proposed for the former chairman and former member of the landscape commission, Giuseppe Marinoni, and Alessandro Scandurra, CEO of Coima. The case, which led to a number of arrests in the summer of 2025 – subsequently quashed by the Court of Review and the Court of Cassation – also concerned the Pirellino project. The charges, which varied in nature, included corruption, undue influence and forgery.

"The lack of evidence" of a "corrupt agreement sufficient to reasonably foresee a conviction", as well as "the absence of sufficient evidence to support the charge in court" regarding the “allegations of inducing the giving or promising of undue benefits, levelled against the Mayor of Milan, Giuseppe Sala” are some of the reasons that led the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office to request that the case be dismissed for the mayor, for Stefano Boeri, for the former councillor Giancarlo Tancredi, the CEO of Coima and others who came under investigation in the urban planning probe. This is stated in a note from Public Prosecutor Marcello Viola.

“It is difficult for those who do not experience these situations first-hand to imagine the bitterness they leave behind, especially when one is aware that one has merely done one’s duty. But those who dedicate themselves to the public interest must, unfortunately, be prepared to pay this price,” commented the Mayor of Milan, “commented Mayor Sala.”

In the statement, the prosecutor explained that the request to dismiss the case “was made in line with the judicial measures taken”, namely the Review and Cassation proceedings, “following a comprehensive assessment of the case files and developments in the pre-trial proceedings”. These proceedings had led, in the summer of last year, to the imposition of house arrest on Tancredi, the former president and former member of the landscape commission; Marinoni; Scandurra, CEO of Coima; Manfredi Catella; the manager Federico Pella; and the entrepreneur Andrea Bezziccheri, the only one to be imprisoned. 

The application, which must now be assessed by the investigating judge, was put forward, the prosecutor emphasises, “by applying the criterion set out” in the Code of Criminal Procedure, “on the grounds that the evidence gathered does not allow for a reasonable expectation of conviction”. The statement then lists the reasons why the decision was taken to seek the dismissal of the case. “With regard to the offences of forgery in connection with corrupt conduct”, according to the assessments made in court, their existence has been ruled out. With regard to the offences of corruption, the guidance provided by the court was followed, namely that there is no evidence of a corrupt quid pro quo sufficient to support a reasonable prospect of conviction. The existence of conflicts of interest – the statement continues – failures to comply with recusal obligations, and professional and financial relationships between members of the Commission and operators involved in building projects, and the critical issues in the town-planning procedures examined are elements which, whilst highlighting significant anomalies, are not sufficient to demonstrate – according to the standard required to sustain the charge in court – the existence of a link (...) between the benefits paid and the exercise of public office. With regard to the allegations of inducing the mayor of Milan, Giuseppe Sala, to give or promise undue benefits – the statement concludes – the instructions of the investigating judge and the Review Court were followed concerning the absence of sufficient evidence to support the charge in court.”