The Swiss public prosecutor is appealing the acquittal pronounced this summer by Michel Platini and the former president of Fifa, the Swiss Sepp Blatter, in a case of fraud, he indicated Thursday, October 20 in a communicated.
The public prosecutor sent a declaration of appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Federal Criminal Court (TPF) and “requested the total annulment of the judgment of first instance”, explains the press release confirming information from the daily The Team.
Acquittal delivered in July
After six years of investigation and two weeks of trial for fraud in Switzerland, the French football icon, 67, and Sepp Blatter, 86, were acquitted on July 8. They faced five years in prison and the prosecution had requested a year and eight months in prison suspended.
Both were appearing for having organized “ illegally, to the detriment of Fifa, a payment of two million Swiss francs”, approximately 1.8 million euros, “in favor of Michel Platini”.
Defense and prosecution agreed on one point: the triple Ballon d’Or advised Sepp Blatter well between 1998 and 2002, during the latter’s first term at the head of Fifa, and the two men signed a contract in 1999 agreeing to an annual remuneration of 300,000 Swiss francs, entirely paid by Fifa. But, in January 2011, the former midfielder who has since become UEFA President asserted a claim of two million Swiss francs”qualified as “false invoice” by the prosecution.
A “gentlemen’s agreement”
The two men insisted on their side that they had from the start decided on an annual salary of one million Swiss francs, by a “gentlemen’s agreement” oral and without witnesses, without the finances of Fifa allowing immediate payment to Michel Platini.
French “Worth His Million”assured Sepp Blatter to the magistrates, before Michel Platini in turn described a negotiation so little formalized that he had not specified the motto: “Me for fun, I said: pesetas, liras, rubles, marks, it’s up to you”had told the legend of the Blues at the hearing.
The court finally found that the fraud was not “not established with a likelihood bordering on certainty”, believing that ” the doubt must benefit the defendants”.