CONTEXT Direct wiretapping had been ordered by the investigating judge in the apartment where Francesco Giorgi was undergoing preventive detention under electronic surveillance. The investigators became aware on April 26, 2023 of a confidential conversation between Mr. Giorgi and his lawyer and understood that he had prepared notes essential to his defense, and that he considered that he was not yet able to communicate them to the judicial authorities during a hearing scheduled for the following day. On April 27, 2023 Francesco Giorgi was interviewed in the premises of the federal police. At the same time, the main inspector Mr. CEFERINO ALVAREZ RODRIGUEZ and two police officers executed a search warrant from Judge Michel Claise at his apartment. The search, carried out in the presence of his parents, aimed to seize Mr Giorgi's laptop, in which he had recorded his defense notes. On May 3, 2023, Inspector CEFERINO ALVAREZ RODRIGUEZ appeared without notice at Mr. Giorgi's apartment to return the mobile phone that investigators had seized during his hearing on April 27, 2023. Intrigued by this visit from the inspector, Mr. Giorgi recorded the conversation with his mobile. Date and time of conversation: 05/3/2023 at 11:01 a.m. Place : Francesco Giorgi’s apartment Transcription F: FRANCESCO GIORGI A: CEFERINO ALVAREZ-RODRIGUEZ - First lead inspector of the investigation A: Hello. hello! F: Hello. A: Are you okay? F: Eh, not too much A: I imagine. F: I didn't like what you did. A: That’s the game. F: No, no, it's not a normal game, I'm telling you very honestly, to confiscate this (the mobile) and my confidential notes, it wasn't it wasn't... A: That’s the game. F: We don't make games like that with people who are collaborating. A: That’s you saying. We have elements that say the contrary. That's why we do it. But that means that, Francesco, must say everything, and not everything is said. So we must seek the truth. F: What was the motivation for this search? A: Because we had to find elements. F: What elements? A: And then also we had to invite your parents to be interviewed, F: What is the real purpose of this search? A: To look for the elements that we found. F: Here, after six months of investigation, after there have already been searches.
A: Of course. And we are going to do bank account searches because bank accounts may have been reopened. Is that normal. We always do this precisely because people think that when we intervene, everything stops, it starts. I know, it's not, it's not easy, I know, it's not, it's not fun. F: But hey. Now you have access to my confidential notes that I had prepared with my lawyer. It is not normal. A: It's normal, that shows us that you have access to the file and that you adapt your speeches with what we have in our hands. But there are things that we don't put in the file. minute 02:12 F: Of course! It is my right to have access to the files. A: Obviously, but you adapt your speech to what is in the file. That's why we don't put everything in. We're not idiots, so we know you're lying to us, we know there are things you're not telling us. So we said ok, we want to play the game, let’s play the game, we did the same thing with PANZERI. Don't think that because he says things and we film him that we believe him, we don't believe anything he says, we don't believe anything he says. We know very well that he is fooling us, we know it. But it's all going to blow up. When it will blow, it will blow. And he will take responsibility because I KNOW HE IS LYING TO US. F: It is my right to have access to the file A: Luckily you have it. F: So you cannot accuse me of having access to the file. A: No, no, that's not what I'm saying. I say that having access to the file, you see things in it and you adapt your speech in relation to what is in the file. F: What are you saying? I do exactly the opposite. I took PANZERI's statements and showed you that he is lying. A: We already know that. That's why I'm telling you there are a lot of things that are not in the file. We're not stupid. F: You have a repentant who is lying. A: WE KNOW THAT ! F: Okay, you know that. A: And we will do what is necessary so that the repentant will not pass. minute 02:43 F: And you attack me, that I collaborated from the start of my arrest. A: Not only that. That's why I'm telling you we have things. F: With my parents who are... my father had two heart attacks, my mother has sclerosis. So you come here this way, he risks... A: No, it went very well with your parents, it went very well. F: But sir... A: I know it’s not pleasant. A: I know it's not fun, but we have to do it. We have to put pressure. And your lawyer knows it very well. And he is going to negotiate now with MALAGNINI and as soon as it is negotiated, things will change. Because what we have now, you know, PANZERI we haven't heard it yet. F: You also heard it on March 10. A: We didn't hear him. Listen carefully to the difference. We listened to what he had to say, we never asked him a question. We let him come. You say you're going to tell us everything and you say you're going to say things we don't know. We let him come and see what he does? HE LIES TO US. We let him do it. Now we're going to start questioning him. And when we start to question him, we will ask him questions about what we have in hand but which is not in the file. We will put it in the file when we ask him questions. Mr Panzeri, that’s not okay, explaining that. Explain . You're not telling us the truth. And if he doesn't tell us the truth... There he still has a chance to say: yes! I forgot to tell you, as we let him speak. F: Ah, so he still has a chance?
A: No. That is to say, as he has not been questioned, he can still say: ah! but I forgot to tell you. Because we didn't ask him any questions. F: But then he can rectify everything now. Since he has all my notes. minute 04:16 A: No, no, he doesn't have them. Because that's it, we also take care not to put them in the file. There are things that are not in the file that we keep. F: Yes, but these are not new elements of the investigation. These are handwritten notes that I prepared with my lawyer, in prison, I transcribed them on my laptop. A: I know it's not pleasant, but we have to, we have to analyze all of them. F: This is a violation of my right of defence! A: Absolutely not. F: Yes. A: No because these are not letters addressed to your lawyer, they are handwritten notes. F: whatever.. A: Well, we analyzed that too and it's not... we do it regularly, it's normal. Now that you took it in the wrong way, I understand it. F: Yes, I take it very badly. Because I said from the start that I was going to collaborate. I was going to give all the information I had in my file. They shouldn't have been taken by force like that. A: We didn't take them by force, you will collaborate. You are negotiating with MALAGNINI. F: You took them with a search while I was with the police. A: What's in there, it's nothing yet... that we have to ask you as a question. F: When I told the police, I will give you the information you want, but first we have to sort things out with the...(federal prosecutor) A: Of course and it will happen. But what you have in the notes is nothing compared to what we want to know. It's nothing. We already know all that in the notes. We know all that, Kathleen and all that, we know. F: What Kathleen? A: Responsibilities with Kathleen, question mark, we know all that, so it's not a problem. We want much more than that. And we're going to get there. So we take our time. MALAGNINI is the federal prosecutor, the judge, he is the judge and we have done our investigation. Everyone has their own agenda, but we don't have an agenda. We want the truth and we will get there slowly. And I know we'll get there with you too. Now you don't like the way it happened and I understand you. But we have to get to the end. We don't have the same... We don't have equal arms with the defense, for example. F: Well, I'm without weapons now, you took them all! minute 06:04 A: No, no! You will see when you make your agreement. We're going to come with questions, Francesco. For the moment, we have not come with any questions. The same thing. We'll let you speak. We haven't come up with the real questions yet. And same thing with PANZERI. We let him talk, we filmed, we did it on purpose. Speak ! What do you want to tell us? What is the topic today? That? Come on, go ahead, we'll listen to you. If you see the tapes. Your lawyer has seen them, I don't know... But if you ask yourself to see them, you will see him. We don't ask him a question, we let him come. For example, between the first and second auditions, he forgets to talk about TARABELLA. In the meantime, he has access to the file, he sees that we have questioned TARABELLA. Second video conference what is he doing? “Look, I would still like to add something about TARABELLA.” And there, he starts talking about TARABELLA, but he doesn't tell us everything, and we know it, but doesn't ask him any questions. It's him who comes. F: Except he's already enjoying all the benefits of his deal. A: Don't forget that the benefit is zero, if we prove that he is lying. he's over! F: Well! his daughter is celebrating. A: His daughter, she doesn't celebrate anything at all. His daughter is hanged by her feet, her mother is hanged by her feet. The only thing is that we.. are going to blow up the agreement. Don't forget Mr. Giorgi,
the agreement says: if you don't respect the agreement, it blows up. He doesn't respect it. HE IS LYING TO US! I know that it’s his daughter is the one who sucks the money. I know it ! F: I’m not taking it personal. I don't care if he keeps his deal or not. I just want to say from the point of view of my position, you were a witness. I presented myself with the drawing, A: I know... F: I showed you all this, you thanked me in person. A: I did it myself. F: I am the collaborator of justice… A: and I continue to tell you that you are doing a good job! F: And a week later I go to court which confirms that I am collaborating and which says: “Mr Giorgi will be released after his hearing on the 27th”. On the 27th, you made this trap of coming to get documents that I was going to give anyway. A: It's not a trap, we need these pieces, we need them for us, it's not at all... Don't think it's a trap. Your... what you do, it continues. Your negotiation continues. It helps us, don’t worry about that! and it's not against you, but we have to get the job done. F: This is a hostile act against me! While the weather changed completely from the court on the 20th and 27th. A: Yes, but don't forget that we're not there. I believe your lawyer will explain to you. We are not in a schoolyard where we high five, we make an act, an agreement, we are in justice and we, the agreements of the prosecutor's office, we don't care! What we want is information. We do not care ! And the investigating judge is not subject to the agreement of the prosecutor. He wants the truth. He is the one who decides. It's not the prosecutor. The prosecution decides when it will be necessary to say we condemn, we do not condemn who we prosecute and who we do not prosecute and why we prosecute them. But the one who does the investigation is the judge. And the judge wants the whole truth. And after the agreements, it’s: “this gentleman does this, gentleman gets that…”. That's none of our business, but we need the truth. So I understand that it's not pleasant. F: I'm really shocked in any case because these are the methods we had in the '90s in Italy with Clean Hands. That's intimidation, while I was completely available to collaborate. A: No, because otherwise the investigating judge would not have issued a search warrant. And the investigating judge is the guarantor that things happen for both charges and discharges. F: To justify such an act. There needs to be a reiteration of the crime or collusion or whatever. A: We may have some, there may be collusion. In any case, you will know. If your bracelet is taken off and you return to prison, you will know there was collusion. F: Yes, but after a week? Well, anyway… A: I tell you don't worry, I understand and I put myself in your place. It is not pleasant. Now, on to the substance… minute 09:43 F: My level of trust in the judiciary is completely gone! A: But you don’t have to have one! We should never... who should we trust in the judiciary? F: But still! Me. Did I collaborate or not from the day one? A: Of course! Every time you were asked a question, you answered. All the answers you gave us. They have been checked, they are good. There you go, Him (PANZERI), he tells us things, we check, it's not good. F: Ok then, instead of going to search his house, you come to my house, and do this act to me. A: But who says it won't be done? F: To take my confidential notes that I made with my lawyer? This is a violation of my right of defence! A: That you see with your lawyer. One, he’s not put in the notes two, these are manuscripts that are in the trash that we took back. The notes that were in the trash. F: Yes, I printed them, so what? because they weren't the right ones.
A: We don't care. We took what there was because we always do that. That's where you find the most beautiful things, it's in the trash. People don't know what they're doing or they don't realize it. F: Sir... What I put in the trash was just that I had typed a version, that it was not the one I wanted to give. And I don't have to justify what I do. A: Shouldn’t have. And like us, we don't have to justify ourselves, we have a mandate, we come, we execute. I'll explain, that's all. F: I find that completely… minute 10:48 A: BUT YOU MUST NOT TRUST THE JUDICIARY. YOU HAVE TO BE CRAZY TO TRUST THE JUDICIARY TODAY, WHATEVER COUNTRY AND WHATEVER JUDICIARY. F: Yes, but in a rule of law based country like Belgium, we cannot trust the judiciary? So I should mistrust judges? A: I will trust the judiciary the day the judges and prosecutors will not politically appointed, is that okay? To be prosecutor of Brussels, the former he was politically appointed and he made an agreement not to prosecute Mr. Courtois. And the Courtois case was closed without further action. I HAVE NO TRUST IN THE JUDICIARY BECAUSE JUSTICE IS PULLED BY STRINGS, BY POLITICIANS. I have no trust in politics, I have no trust in the European Union and I have no trust in the EU officials. None. And the more time passes, the more it proves me right. We still saw €4,000 for seats in the Wallon parliament. They spent 48 million in rent for a building where there is nobody in because it's our money. The day people understand this, things may change. No, I don't have trust. You shouldn't have trust, and luckily there are lawyers! I tell you honestly, fortunately there are lawyers, we cannot trust the judiciary. F: Listen to me, apart from that (the mobile), I also need to have the other one. A: As soon as it's done, is there a cell phone too? F: So, they closed my ING account A: Did ING do it? F: ING did it A: Why did they do it? F: Because they saw me in the press and then they said “unilaterally we are closing the account”. So I transferred all the little money I had to my father's account, which I had activated on that. So to pay… fortunately I had already paid all the fees here, the statements of charges. But for the month of May, I need this. I can't open another account because everything is attached to this. Another thing, I also asked ARNOLD to give me the PIN code of my Belgian identity card, because with that I cannot have, I cannot open another Belgian account. And so if I don't open that, I can't transfer my remaining money to the new account. A: Oh yes, the European Union pays into which account? On the Belgian account? the old ING account? F: The Belgian account which is closed. A: Oh damn! F: So I told Parliament that I can't make transfers at the moment because I don't have an account. It's been three weeks since I asked for this and it's a photo on my cell phone. A: The laptop, PC and telephone have not… F: Not this one that was seized when they arrested me A: At the very beginning, F: At the very beginning. There was already a request made to Arnold from my lawyer, but also when I went on the 25th, I asked him for it but he didn't give it. But I need it to pay. A: I understand that, I will do what is necessary. You have my word I will do what is necessary for this. A: Ahi ahi ahi… F: But really I… well… A: I understand you. But it's hard and I tell you don't trust anyone! F: Goodbye
At 11:14 the investigator leaves the apartment