The recent resignation of Andrea Delmastro Delle Vedove as Undersecretary of Justice in Italy has been overshadowed by questions surrounding his involvement with a restaurant co-owned by the daughter of a convicted mafia boss. Delmastro, a member of the Brothers of Italy party, has now offered his account of the situation in an interview with Corriere della Sera, but his explanation contains inconsistencies with earlier statements and leaves several key questions unanswered. The controversy centers on the Bisteccheria d’Italia on Via Tuscolana in Rome and whether public funds were used to cover expenses at the establishment.
Delmastro vehemently denies any misuse of funds from the Department of Penitentiary Administration (DAP), stating, “I categorically exclude it. I never had the ministry’s credit card. I never requested reimbursement for a meal or a coffee.” This directly addresses allegations of potential peculate – embezzlement of public funds – that arose following reports of his frequent patronage of the restaurant. The core of the issue, although, extends beyond simple expense reports and delves into the ethics of his business association and the timing of key financial transactions.
A Shifting Narrative
Delmastro maintains he resigned voluntarily, characterizing his involvement with the restaurant as a “lapse in judgment.” He claims he was unaware of the full extent of Mauro Caroccia’s criminal connections until after Caroccia’s arrest. However, this assertion is complicated by his decision to transfer his ownership stake in the restaurant, Le 5 Forchette srl, to a company he controlled *before* Caroccia’s conviction became final. Caroccia, a known figure with ties to organized crime, had been initially acquitted on appeal, a ruling later overturned by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation. Delmastro’s explanation that he “didn’t do any checks” rings hollow given the widespread media coverage of Caroccia’s investigations, even during the period of his initial acquittal.
He described meeting Caroccia at the restaurant, stating, “It was a good place to eat. He seemed like a classic Roman restaurateur, one of those that don’t exist anymore.” This characterization, however, clashes with Caroccia’s documented history and the scrutiny he faced from law enforcement. The timeline of events, and Delmastro’s awareness of Caroccia’s background, remains a central point of contention.
The Involvement of an 18-Year-Old
Further complicating the matter is the involvement of Caroccia’s 18-year-old daughter in the business venture. Delmastro initially stated, according to reporting by ANSA, that he partnered with “a girl who was not under investigation and not indicted, who turns out to be ‘the daughter of…’” He claimed he left the company as soon as he discovered her familial connection, citing “ethical and moral rigor.” However, this statement contradicts his later assertion in the Corriere della Sera interview that he already knew Caroccia prior to forming the partnership.
Delmastro explained that Caroccia had expressed a desire to open a smaller restaurant for his daughter, leading to the idea of a joint venture. He stated that he involved “friends from Biella” in the project, contributing both equity and a “societal loan” that was never cashed. He insists he lost money on the deal, selling his shares immediately after Caroccia’s arrest. “I didn’t produce a euro. I only lost money,” he claimed. However, a notary’s record of the share transfer indicates the shares were repurchased in cash, raising questions about the accuracy of his financial accounting.
Questions of Transparency and Timing
When pressed about the cash transaction, Delmastro offered no clear explanation. He defended the initial transfer of his shares to his own company as a way to “shield” his name from appearing in the company registry. But if he was unaware of Caroccia’s criminal background at the time, the need for such shielding remains unclear. The lack of transparency surrounding this maneuver fuels speculation about his motives.
Adding to the scrutiny is the delay in Delmastro’s parliamentary declaration regarding his business interests. He dismissed this as a common occurrence among lawmakers, calling it a “providential delay.” This explanation has done little to quell concerns about potential conflicts of interest and a lack of due diligence.
The case raises broader questions about the vetting processes for individuals holding public office and the potential for organized crime to infiltrate legitimate businesses. While Delmastro maintains his innocence and insists he acted in good faith, the inconsistencies in his account and the questionable timing of his actions continue to draw criticism.
The investigation into Delmastro’s conduct is ongoing. Italian authorities are expected to review the financial records of Le 5 Forchette srl and examine the details of the share transfer. The next step in the process will likely involve further questioning of Delmastro and other individuals involved in the restaurant venture. The outcome of this investigation could have significant implications for Delmastro’s political future and for the broader debate about corruption and organized crime in Italy.
Here’s a developing story, and time.news will continue to provide updates as they grow available. Readers are encouraged to share their thoughts and perspectives in the comments section below.
Related reading
