“If they had delivered the mail to the officers, Benfica would have said they could not be used”

In 2017 and 2018 there’s a case of disclosure of emails, entities associated to the construction of Benfica and communications between third events to be disclosed at the occasion Universo Porto – da Benfica, on the Porto canal, and there are three defendants: Francisco J. Marques, Diogo Faria and Julio Magalhès.

The studying of the judgment at the Central Criminal Court of Lisbon on March 27, session scheduled at 14:00 by a bunch of judges of the end result of the process for the disclosure of emails of Benfica in Porto Canal.

In 2017 and 2018 there’s a case of disclosure of emails, entities associated to the construction of Benfica and communications between third events to be disclosed at the occasion Universo Porto – da Benfica, on the Porto canal, and there are three defendants: Francisco J. Marques, Diogo Faria and Julio Magalhès.

In in the present day’s session, the final session devoted to the allegations, Francisco J. Marks’ protection said FC Porto’s communications director launched the e mail from Benfica in the public curiosity and questioned the validity of the “avatars” of submitting a criticism about the case.

Lawyer Nuno Brandao requested for the acquittal of his constituent, noting that the Ministry of Public Affairs (MP) “does not have the legitimacy” to conduct an investigation based mostly on an unlawful criticism.

Nuno Brandao additionally questioned the argument that “if the defendant was involved with the public curiosity, they would have handed over the emails to the authorities”, arguing that the emails had been “proof” to course of assistants.

“If the defendants hand over the emails to the authorities, Benfica will say they can’t be used, as a result of their origin is prohibited”, he referred.

The lawyer additionally refuted allegations by aides who emphasised the “lack of apology from the defendants”, reverting to speaking about the defendants’ convictions in the public curiosity of the materials.

“Repentance can’t be measured and the court docket is not an instance of the purification of souls,” he said.

At the starting of his accusations, Nuno Brandão said that “the defendants are in a fragile place”, recalling that judges associated to Benfica had been concerned at varied levels of the course of.

On Tuesday, the MP was charged with three counts of violating non-consensual correspondence, Francisco J. Marks was requested to plead responsible, however go away the sentence “at the discretion of the court docket”. Given the defendant’s “absence of a prison document.”

With respect to the defendant Diogo Faria, the content material director of the ‘Dragões’ channel, the plaintiff contended that he had engaged Francisco J. Marquez was assisted, however defended that “the court docket will decide the info”.

The consultant of the MP left the potential conviction of the former director of the Porto Canal, Julio Magalhès, “in the consideration of the court docket”, arguing that “he had by no means participated straight in the dwell content material of the occasion, had no prior data of the emails and did not take part of their choice.”

In the program “Universo Porto – da Bancada” on Porto Canal, Francisco J., who revealed the contents of Benfica’s e mail Marques is charged with three counts of aggravated violation of correspondence or telecommunications, three counts of aggravated violation of correspondence or telecommunications, three counts of aggravated invasion of privateness, and one rely of unauthorized entry with consent.

FC Porto’s director of communications has been charged with 5 severe crimes towards a authorized individual and one towards a company entity that arose after a non-public indictment.

Diogo Faria has been charged with the offense of trespass to correspondence or telecommunications and the offense of unauthorized entry, as well as to the offense towards a authorized individual aggravated by non-public indictment.

Finally, Julio Magalhès has been charged by the Public Ministry with three severe counts of correspondence or telecommunications violations, three counts of intrusion into non-public life with categorical consent, and 5 severe counts of crime towards a authorized individual.

.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *