Chiara Ferragni, investigated by the Milan Public Prosecutor's Office. In the prosecutors' sights also the manager

The General Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court has established that it is Milan's Prosecutor's Office that is competent to investigate the Chiara Ferragni - Balocco case for the affair of the designer pandoro, after the conflict of territorial competence between the Milan and Cuneo investigators had been raised. In the meantime, we learn from the text that Fabio D'Amato, manager and close collaborator of the influencer, is also under investigation for aggravated fraud for the pandoro and Easter egg cases.

The measure was signed by the Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, Mariella De Masellis. About ten days ago, Milan's Deputy Prosecutor Eugenio Fusco had raised before the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court the conflict between prosecutors on the competence to investigate the Christmas cake case of the company, which is based in the province of Cuneo. Deputy Prosecutor Fusco, who delegated the investigation to the Economic and Financial Police Nucleus of the Gdf, had asked, in the document sent to the Supreme Court's Attorney General, under Article 54-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to clarify whose jurisdiction it is to deal with the 'Pink Christmas' pandoro affair.

This is because, subsequently, the Piedmontese prosecutor's office, led by Onelio Dodero, also opened a twin file against the influencer with a millionaire turnover and Alessandra Balocco, the confectionery company's managing director.

In the memorandum sent to Rome, the Milan Public Prosecutor's Office also indicated the other two cases on which the Milanese prosecutors have turned the spotlight, namely the Easter eggs by Dolci Preziosi and the doll, actually called 'Mascotte Chiara Ferragni', produced in collaboration with Trudi. Ferragni is also under investigation in Milan for aggravated fraud in these two other cases. The owner of Dolci Preziosi, Franco Cannillo, is also under investigation in connection with the chocolate eggs.

The Milanese investigators and investigators had considered in their act the three episodes linked by the 'bond of continuation', as part of an alleged 'same criminal design'. The Cassation Prosecutor's Office resolved the question of jurisdiction on the Pandoro case, while on the other two no conflicts were raised and, therefore, the Milanese investigators continue to investigate them. The hypothesis of fraud, in general, in these cases concerns the sale of sponsored products, particularly on social channels, by Ferragni, misleading, according to the prosecution, consumers convinced that the proceeds would go to charity.