Gip, no judicial review for Dama-Paul&Shark and Aspesi

No judicial control for Dama, a clothing company owned by Andrea Dini (brother-in-law of Lombardy President Attilio Fontana), and Alberto Aspesi spa. Milan's gip Roberto Crepaldi rejected the public prosecutor's request to subject the two companies, accused by prosecutor Paolo Storari of aiding and abetting the exploitation of workers employed by a workshop run by Chinese people to whom the production of some garments was subcontracted, to judicial review.

For the judge, 'the prerequisites' for the requested measure do not exist. And 'it cannot be considered proven (...) that the two suspects', the managing director Andrea Dini, brother-in-law of the Lombard governor Attilio Fontana, and Francesco Umile Chiappetta, 'have participated' in the crime.

Judge Crepaldi, in his order, does not deny the existence of a situation of exploitation of the workers, but notes that the responsibility lies with the Garbagnate Milanese workshop, whose owners are also under investigation. And that the measure requested by the public prosecutor 'certainly (...) has the content and intent to interrupt the illegal conduct. (...) But it does not allow (...) to remedy the deficits", hypothesised against Dama and Aspesi, "of the organisational model with respect to the criteria for the choice of suppliers and supervision".

As for Dini and Chiappetta, 'it cannot be considered proven' that they 'directly recruited, employed or used the workers' by 'directly' determining or intermediating their actual employment 'in exploitative conditions'. Nor is there any evidence of 'a criminal agreement between the top management of the companies involved regarding the use of exploitation as a shared method to reduce the costs of work'. And that their having 'remained inactive, despite being aware of the concrete ways in which the packaging of their products was taking place' would not have been, as the public prosecutor claimed, 'wilful blindness'. This is also because 'there is no direct evidence to suggest that (...) they were informed, albeit partially and incompletely, of the production conditions' within the workshop, which over the years changed name - from M&G COLLECTIONS to GMAX - but not location. In short, it seems to be understood that at most there could be a culpable conspiracy against them, like that hypothesised in other cases involving luxury brands.