The Grand Hotel in Riccione remains under seizure, but the investigating judge’s order introduces some changes compared to the measure carried out by the Guardia di Finanza (Finance Police) on 28 July. Judge Alessandro Capodimonte confirmed the preventive seizure of Marebello Spa’s assets, but appointed a new judicial administrator in place of the bankruptcy trustee.
At the same time, some companies managing properties linked to Marebello were excluded from the seizure. According to the defense, the judge deemed some of the contracts signed with the company to be valid and drawn up at times not deemed suspicious.
The investigation by the Rimini Public Prosecutor’s Office involves Gianni Andreatta and five other people, under various charges including fraudulent bankruptcy through asset diversion, false corporate communications and preferential bankruptcy. At the heart of the investigation is the management of Marebello’s real estate assets and an alleged scheme designed, according to the prosecution, to remove the properties from the bankruptcy proceedings through business lease agreements with companies linked to the same group of interests.
The seizure ordered by the Prosecutor’s Office had an overall value of around 29 million euros and concerned assets that include, besides the Grand Hotel, Villa Bianca, several warehouses, Torre 900-Grattacielo and Villa Bruna.
According to the investigative hypothesis, more than 3.8 million euros in uncollected rents would have accumulated in the period before Marebello’s bankruptcy was declared in September 2023.
The defense, however, reads some favorable elements into the latest decision. «We are fairly satisfied with this outcome», said lawyers Stefano Caroli and Anna Maria Putignano, highlighting both the exclusion of some companies from the measure and the decision to entrust judicial administration to someone other than the bankruptcy trustee.
The legal battle, however, is set to continue. The lawyers have already announced they will appeal to the Tribunale del Riesame (Court of Review), continuing to challenge the prosecution’s reconstruction of events and the legitimacy of the seizure.
