“If they had submitted letters to the authorities, Benfica would have said they could not be used”

The case of the revelation of emails began in 2017 and 2018, with the communication between the issues related to the construction of Benfica and the third get together to be revealed in the program Universo Porto – da Benfica, on the Porto Canal, and has three defendants: Francisco J Marques, Diogo Faria and Julio Magalhães.

The group of judges of the choice of the technique of disclosure of Benfica’s e-mails in Porto Canal is getting ready at the moment on March 27 the studying of the choice, a session scheduled for 14:00, at the Central Criminal Court in Lisbon.

The case of the revelation of emails began in 2017 and 2018, with the communication between the issues related to the construction of Benfica and the third get together to be revealed in the program Universo Porto – da Benfica, on the Porto Canal, and has three defendants: Francisco J Marques, Diogo Faria and Julio Magalhães.

In at the moment’s assembly, the final one given to the costs, the protection of Francisco J. Marques said that the director of communication of FC Porto launched emails from Benfica underneath the public curiosity and questioned the legitimacy of the “incarnates” to file complaints on the matter .

Attorney Nuno Brandão requested for his dismissal, contemplating that the Ministry of Public Affairs (MP) “did not have the authorized authority” to examine primarily based on the unlawful complaints.

Nuno Brandão additionally questioned the incontrovertible fact that “if the defendants had been affected by public curiosity, they would have given the e-mails to the authorities”, contemplating that the brokers in the case needed the e-mails to be “positioned”.

“If the defendants gave the emails to the authorities, Benfica would say that they can not be used, as a result of their origin was not licensed,” he said.

The lawyer additionally refuted the statements of the supporters who emphasised the “lack of regret of the prosecutors”, returning to speak about the choice of the defendants in the public curiosity of the content material.

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

At the starting of his assertion, Nuno Brandão said that “the opposition is at risk”, remembering that Benfica referees had been concerned in numerous points of the course of.

On Tuesday, the MP requested for the choice of Francisco J. Marques, for 3 counts of violation of unrelated correspondence, by explaining Benfica’s emails on the Porto Canal, however left the choice “to be thought of by the court docket”. given the “absence of prison document” of the accused.

Regarding the defendant Diogo Faria, who’s the director of the film ‘Dragões’, the public prosecutor thought of that he helped Francisco J. Marques, however defended that “the court docket will meet the details”.

The MP left “to the discretion of the court docket” the potential choice of Júlio Magalhães, the former director of Porto Canal, arguing that “he was not immediately concerned in the contents of the program, he had no information of the emails and he did not take part of their choice”.

Francisco J. Marques, who revealed the contents of Benfica’s emails on the program “Universo Porto – da Bancada”, on the Porto Canal, is accused of three counts of violation of letters or communications, three counts of significant violation of letters or communications, apparently. settlement with three counts of invasion of privateness, and one depend of improper discovery.

FC Porto’s communications supervisor can be accountable for 5 critical costs towards a authorized individual and one cost towards a company physique, aggravated after being accused of secrecy.

Diogo Faria is charged with violation of mail or phone communication and failure to seem, as well as to the crime of prison trespass which is aggravated by the crime of secrecy.

Finally, Mr. Júlio Magalhães is charged by the Ministry of the People with three further counts of mail or phone communications, apparently in reference to three counts of invasion of personal life, and 5 further counts of trespassing towards a licensed individual.

.

Leave a Comment

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