The judicial case over the former O' Pagliarone restaurant in Monteforte Irpino has returned to the courtroom with sharp exchanges over wiretaps, timelines, and money.
At issue is the auction held at the Avellino courthouse on 20 July 2017, and what prosecutors allege happened around it: interference with the auction connected to an alleged payment of €120,000. The charges reported in the case include extortion aggravated by the mafia method, along with money laundering allegations.
All of the claims discussed in recent hearings remain allegations. The sources describe testimony and courtroom argument, not a final finding of guilt, and the trial's final outcome has not been established.
What the latest hearing examined
Recent local reporting describes a hearing focused on three linked questions: the investigative timeline, the meaning of intercepted conversations, and the prosecution's reconstruction of the alleged €120,000 payment.
According to the reports, a Carabinieri lieutenant described how the investigation developed, including intercepted conversations from 2018 concerning interest in the O' Pagliarone restaurant. The investigation is reported to have involved intercepted conversations, witness statements, and Carabinieri investigative activity connected to the Nuovo Clan Partenio and the wider "Aste Ok" proceedings.
The named defendants or accused parties reported in the proceedings include Costantino Giordano, Nicola Galdieri, Renato Freda, and Armando Pompeo Aprile.
The defence has pushed back firmly. Its challenge, as reported, concerns the prosecution's timeline, the interpretation of the interceptions, and the evidentiary basis for the alleged money-transfer reconstruction. In other words, both the meaning of what was said on the wiretaps and how the alleged payment is supposed to fit into the auction sequence remain disputed in court.
A key witness who did not confirm the accusations
A central and sensitive point for readers is the position of Livia Forte.
Investigators linked the case in part to statements attributed to Forte in December 2020, and prosecutors have alleged that a €120,000 payment was connected to withdrawal from the auction. But in court, Forte reportedly exercised her right not to answer and did not confirm the accusations.
That distinction matters: earlier investigative statements attributed to a witness and that witness's later position in court are not the same thing. The exact evidentiary weight to give the interceptions, the earlier statements, and the alleged payment remains contested, and the court has not made a final determination.
A separate episode was dismissed
The reporting also refers to a separate matter involving alleged extortion episodes tied to events at the restaurant in 2018 and 2019.
That separate episode was reportedly subject to a dismissal order signed on 17 September 2024. It should not be confused with the ongoing trial over the 2017 auction and the alleged €120,000 payment, where disputed evidence is still being examined.
What to watch next
For readers following the case in Avellino and Irpinia local press:
- How the court assesses the intercepted conversations. The prosecution and defence offer competing readings, and the reports do not establish which interpretation the court will accept.
- How the court treats the alleged €120,000 payment reconstruction. The defence disputes the evidentiary basis, and no final judicial conclusion is reported.
- Whether further testimony or documentary evidence clarifies the current procedural position of each defendant. The available articles differ in emphasis and procedural detail, so court records or later authoritative reporting will be needed for a complete status.
Until then, the Pagliarone auction case remains what the courtroom exchanges suggest: a closely contested reconstruction of a 2017 auction, examined through wiretaps and disputed allegations, with the presumption of innocence intact.
