Procura blocks Juve fan foundation from referee case
Inside the Milan prosecutor’s office, the Juve fan foundation Jdentità Bianconera stood aside as the Procura di Milano declared it lacks standing to join the main referee‑case file as an offended party and to challenge the request to archive former referee designator Gianluca Rocchi’s investigation.
Legal standing and procedural context
La Procura di Milano issued its position after the end of July, noting that Giulia Marozzi, the investigating judge, will decide whether to close the probe into the alleged sports fraud. The foundation’s request, filed on its website, claims to be a “point of reference for Juventus» fans” in promoting transparency, rights and social initiatives.
La Fondazione Jdentità Bianconera describes itself as a reference point for Juventus supporters, emphasizing its role in transparency and social projects. It argues that its statutes give it the right to oppose the archive request.
In mid‑July, with the last‑minute signature of prosecutor Maurizio Ascione, the request to archive Rocchi’s case was submitted, citing a reconstructed “historical existence” of isolated interference episodes but no concrete evidence. Marcello Viola, head of the Procura, explained that no proof was found of a structured system to steer referee appointments in favour of Inter, and the filing did not list any offended parties.
Vieri launches Pio Esposito, national record, says Milan and Juventus aren't title contenders
Foundation’s demands and prosecutor’s response
The foundation, represented by lawyer Stefano Sassano, argued that its statutes legitimize opposition to the archive request and called for a supplemental investigation. Its petition lists the full acquisition of telephone logs and communications, complete VAR‑room recordings from 2024 through last May, hearings of Nerazzurri managers, and scrutiny of the Serie A calendar drafting.
Paolo Ielo, who has been following the file since shortly before the archive request, warned that the foundation is not entitled to intervene as an offended party because it does not hold the legal interest protected by the fraud‑sport crime. Should Judge Marozzi adopt this reasoning, she may dismiss the case outright without scheduling a hearing.
The outcome will determine whether fan organisations can legally challenge prosecutorial decisions in high‑profile sports investigations. It also underscores the delicate balance between supporters’ demand for transparency and the judiciary’s discretion in handling alleged match‑fixing allegations.