logo
Swiss appeals court acquits Blatter and Platini in graft case

Swiss appeals court acquits Blatter and Platini in graft case

Yahoo25-03-2025

Former FIFA president Sepp Blatter and ex-UEFA chief Michel Platini on Tuesday were acquitted again on appeal by a Swiss court in a long-running corruption case.
As in the first instance, when the pair were acquitted in 2022, the extraordinary appeals court in Muttenz near Basel did not follow the recommendations of prosecutors who had requested suspended sentences of 20 months.
After almost 10 years of proceedings, a final appeal is still possible before the Swiss Federal Court, but only on limited legal grounds.
Blatter, 89, and Platini, 69, again appeared in court on charges stemming from a delayed payment of two million Swiss francs (1.8 million euros) FIFA made to Platini in 2011 for consultancy services.
The legal saga shattered the careers of Blatter and former France captain and manager Platini, once among the most powerful figures in world football.
"After two acquittals, the federal prosecutor's office must also admit that this criminal procedure has definitively failed. Michel Platini must finally be left alone in criminal matters," said Dominic Nellen, Platini's lawyer.
The case began in 2015 when Blatter quit as head of FIFA in a corruption crisis.
They were initially acquitted by the Swiss Federal Court in June 2022 of charges that included "disloyal management", "breach of trust" and "forgery of securities".
However, the Swiss Attorney General's office immediately appealed that verdict.
The defence and prosecution agreed that Platini did advise Blatter between 1998 and 2002, during the Swiss administrator's first term at the head of FIFA, and that in 1999 the two men signed a contract agreeing an annual remuneration of 300,000 Swiss francs, to be "paid in full by FIFA".
Blatter and Platini said that at the start they agreed orally, and without witnesses, on an annual salary of one million Swiss francs, but FIFA's financial state did not allow for immediate payment.
In January 2011, "more than eight years after the end of his activity as advisor", Platini "claimed a debt of two million Swiss francs", which FIFA paid.
At the time, Blatter was running for re-election as FIFA president and Platini had become head of European football.
Prosecutors argued that this was an "unfounded" payment, obtained by "cleverly misleading" FIFA's internal controls through false statements made by the two executives -- the key criterion in the fraud.
cfe/mw/jc

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Lammy is picking a needless fight with America
Lammy is picking a needless fight with America

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Lammy is picking a needless fight with America

The alarming revelation that 2024 recorded the highest number of global conflicts since the Second World War should be taken as an incentive to deepen ties with key allies, not fracture them. That would certainly be the response of any government committed to the defence of the realm faced with the depressing statistic that last year saw 61 conflicts taking place in 36 countries. Of these, 11 were defined as full-blown conflicts – those that claimed at least 1,000 battlefield deaths – and included the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as other less-publicised violent eruptions in Sudan, Syria, Nigeria and Ethiopia. At a time when Sir Keir Starmer is attempting to promote his national security credentials, the rising tide of conflict detailed in a report by Sweden's Uppsala University should prompt his Government to strengthen ties with key allies such as the US and Israel. Instead, by opting to target two members of the Israeli government with sanctions, Starmer has shown that he is more interested in virtue-signalling than common sense. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich may come from the ulta-nationalist fringe of Israeli politics, but they remain important members of Israel's democratically elected government, which is one of the UK's closest allies in the Middle East. Moreover, Israel, just like Ukraine, finds itself in the vanguard of the West's deepening confrontation with two of the most potent threats it faces, in the form of Vladimir Putin's Russia and Iranian-sponsored Islamist terrorism. The UK's support for Ukraine, together with its European allies, is predicated on the understanding that Western security would be fatally compromised if Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine were to succeed. Similarly, the UK's declaration of support for Israel in the wake of the October 7 attacks in 2023 was based on the tacit acknowledgement that it was in the West's interests that Iran's backing for Hamas terrorists must not be allowed to go unchallenged, especially given the ayatollahs' fixation with developing nuclear weapons. The Labour Government's decision, therefore, to single out two prominent members of the Israeli government for public censure not only threatens to undermine relations with a key regional ally. It runs the risk of jeopardising our own national security, especially if the Israelis conclude it is no longer in their interests to share vital intelligence with the UK. Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar has already announced the Israeli cabinet will meet next week to respond to what he called an 'unacceptable decision'. The British Government's decision to pick on the two politicians is hardly surprising given its previous lamentable track record of targeting Israel, with Foreign Secretary David Lammy declaring his support for the International Criminal Court and its highly politicised move to prosecute Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes. Yet, by siding with other self-righteous, but wholly naive, administrations in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, to provoke an entirely avoidable diplomatic row with Israel, Starmer and Co have placed themselves firmly on the wrong side of history. Apart from alienating Israel, the move also risks causing a rift with the US, another key ally. America's secretary of state Marco Rubio was particularly critical of the measures imposed against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for 'inciting violence against the Palestinian people'. The sanctions 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home and end the war,' he said, urging the UK 'not to forget who the real enemy is'. Hitting two controversial Israeli politicians with sanctions might play to Labour's vociferously anti-Israel supporters, but it could prove to be a self-defeating move in terms of safeguarding our own long-term interests. In terms of the likely impact it will have on Israeli policy, the sanctions will be about as effective as Greta Thunberg's equally puerile attempt this week to break Israel's Gaza blockade with her Freedom Flotilla. At the same time they run the risk of sending a signal to Iran and other hostile regimes that the UK is more interested in embarrassing its allies than confronting its enemies. It is certainly hard to grasp the logic of why, when Western powers like the UK are preparing to confront Iran over its nuclear programme, they should choose this moment to pick a fight with Israel, Tehran's sworn enemy. The need to impose fresh sanctions against Iran was very much in evidence at this week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, when Rafael Grossi, the body's director general, confirmed three new previously undeclared nuclear sites had been identified in Iran that could be used for developing nuclear weapons. The UK is among a number of European powers that have responded by pressing for the reimposition of sanctions against Tehran. But the ayatollahs are unlikely to change course on their nuclear ambitions if they believe they share a common interest with Britain and its allies in targeting the Israelis. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Rachel Reeves may have just killed Nato
Rachel Reeves may have just killed Nato

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Rachel Reeves may have just killed Nato

There will be a moment, some time in the next few years when the US will genuinely consider leaving Nato. And if it does, we should not be surprised. It wasn't as if they didn't warn the rest of us. About the only thing Donald Trump and Barack Obama ever agreed on was that Europe must make a much bigger financial contribution to Nato. In 2014 at the Cardiff Summit, the Treasury furiously resisted the demands. All sorts of tricks were pulled and definitions were stretched to get the UK to 2 per cent of GDP. The Americans, in their polite way, asked nicely. They've been asking ever since. Because as they command all Allied forces in Nato they knew the truth about the state of everyone's forces. While public scrutiny was kept at bay using secrecy and 'operational reasons', SACEUR – Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the military boss of Nato and always an American – grew increasingly concerned as Russia got more and more aggressive. And still European capitals, including London, carried on cutting. Not until 2019 and Boris Johnson did the Ministry of Defence turn the corner with real money and real reform. Previous Conservative and Labour governments had used the Red Arrows and Trooping the Colour to pretend that all was well. But Ukraine found us out. Nato and the international community needed to act: and as we examined our inventory ministers could see just how weak we had become. I remember when we debated gifting the AS90 155mm long range artillery to Ukraine I was informed that while we had 73 guns on the books only 19 worked! Or when I tried to increase the number of tanks to be upgraded to Challenger 3s I was told it was impossible because so many of our tanks had already been stripped of parts to keep others running. You might say that I should have known all that detail on day one. But you'd be surprised how well the services can hide bad news when they want to. Last week we witnessed Labour's first defence review for more than 20 years. It was heralded by re‑announcing many Conservative procurements. As a review it was weak: clearly budget-led not threat led. The big decisions had been made beforehand, and without 3 per cent by 2030 the review would clearly be hollow at birth, as it was. It was also an insult to the men and women of the Armed Forces and the equivalent of sticking two fingers up to the White House. Today's spending review confirmed what we all feared. Rather than making tough decisions on public spending priorities, Rachel Reeves chose to use Treasury tricks to deceive us all. The Government has folded in intelligence spending, Ukraine spending and even Foreign Office money to the notional 'defence' figure. The result is that core defence spending will not even be 2.5 per cent as promised: not even close. There was no path to 3 per cent either. It was just a con all along. If John Healey spent as much time battling the Treasury as he did repeating my government's plans or deceiving the public with spin then he might have had some success. But it is clear he is Labour first and UK defence second. How dare this Government avoid the solemn duty to defend our shores and properly equip the men and women of the armed forces. Labour was the government that sent our troops to war in Snatch Land Rovers and they are destined to repeat that betrayal. Next week Donald Trump will arrive in Holland for the Nato summit. He will bring with him a message that we must all spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on actual defence, not counting spies or diplomats. The Donald will not be bought off with Treasury tricks. I was in Washington last week and some very senior people in the White House and the Pentagon genuinely believe Trump may leave Nato in two years. They are serious. So we need to either demonstrate we are pulling our weight or we need to compensate for the 70 per cent loss to Nato capability if the US leaves. Based on Rachel Reeves's efforts we will do neither. History may point to this as the moment when the UK surrendered its place in Nato and triggered its demise. And all the while, Putin and Xi will be licking their lips. Waiting for their moment. For that little bit of Estonia or Finland. The best Donald Trump can do next week is say that Nato is a club with a subscription. No money should mean no entry. Ben Wallace served as Secretary of State for Defence from 2019 to 2023. He is a former British Army officer Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Countdown is on: One year until 2026 FIFA World Cup comes to Massachusetts
Countdown is on: One year until 2026 FIFA World Cup comes to Massachusetts

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Countdown is on: One year until 2026 FIFA World Cup comes to Massachusetts

BOSTON (WPRI) — With a year to go until the 2026 FIFA World Cup, officials in Boston unveiled a countdown clock at Faneuil Hall. The international soccer tournament will be played in 16 host cities, including Boston. Seven games will be held at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro from June 13 to July 9, including a quarterfinal matchup. The stadium is slated to undergo extensive renovations ahead of the tournament and will temporarily be named 'Boston Stadium' for the World Cup matches. RELATED: Providence leaders 'actively involved' in conversations to host 2026 World Cup team Since the tournament is expected to bring an influx of tourists and revenue to Southern New England, Providence leaders are already warning about the level of planning that needs to be done. Providence is looking to host one of the teams after FIFA released 14 base camp options, which the organization described as a 'training site and accommodation pairing that will serve as the primary base for teams during the group stage, where they will train, rest, and prepare for their matches.' Currently, only New York and New Jersey are the closest base camp options to New England. A FIFA spokesperson told 12 News that more options will be announced later this year. Separately, the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency (RIEMA) is meeting monthly to prepare for the matches, which will increase to bimonthly in August. Download the and apps to get breaking news and weather alerts. Watch or with the new . Follow us on social media: Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store