CORRIERE DELLA SERA
27 maggio 2006
La Procura di Milano ha recuperato la relazione.
«Il Cavaliere discusse come allontanare se stesso dalla galassia offshore»
Mills: «Parlai con Berlusconi di All Iberian»
L'avvocato contraddice l'ex premier.
L'ammissione agli ispettori del fisco inglese nel 2004
MILANO — «All'epoca della perquisizione del Serious Fraud Office» a Londra nell'aprile 1996 (inizio dell'inchiesta All Iberian sulle società offshore della Fininvest, ndr), «Berlusconi ha discusso con Mills che cosa si sarebbe potuto fare per frapporre ulteriore distanza fra se stesso e quelle società». Parole dell'avvocato David Mills (l'architetto societario di quelle offshore Fininvest) agli ispettori del Fisco inglese, che così ne riassunsero le risposte alle domande postegli martedì 22 luglio 2004 a Bristol in una procedura di accertamento fiscale.
Ma come? Mills? «Non lo conosco, mai incontrato», aveva ripetuto Silvio Berlusconi per anni, ancora lo scorso 29 dicembre in Consiglio dei Ministri. E per quel sistema di società offshore costruito da Mills all'inizio anni '90 per Fininvest attorno alla galassia All Iberian, Berlusconi aveva coniato nel 2000 una delle sue più trancianti battute: «Con il mio senso estetico, non avrei mai accettato una società con quel nome».
Mills stesso, salvo una manciata di secondi al telefono nel novembre 1995 e un fugace passaggio ad Arcore, aveva sempre negato d'aver mai incrociato Berlusconi, e soprattutto d'aver mai parlato direttamente con lui di All Iberian: giurandolo addirittura ai giudici del suo Paese, quando per lui a Londra nel marzo 2003 da Milano si era spostato in trasferta il processo Sme.
E invece, ecco ora spuntare davvero un incontro di Berlusconi con Mills. Già nel 1996. Proprio per studiare come allontanare da sé (« to further distance himself ») quelle offshore di cui all'epoca Fininvest negava la riferibilità. E proprio nei mesi caldi dell'avvio dell'inchiesta All Iberian, finita con la prescrizione in appello nel 1999 del finanziamento illecito a Craxi dopo l'iniziale condanna in primo grado a 2 anni e 4 mesi; e con il proscioglimento nel 2005 dal falso in bilancio per 1.000 miliardi di lire «perché il fatto non è più previsto come reato» dalla nuova legge introdotta dal governo Berlusconi.
Fa così un certo effetto, a distanza di tanti anni e a processo finito, che Mills agli ispettori del Fisco inglese ammetta candidamente che, delle «35-40 società offshore costituite con la galassia Fininvest, metà di esse divennero parte del gruppo Fininvest consolidato, e metà no»; o che definisca «una decisione disperatamente sbagliata», fatta all'epoca «per lealtà verso il cliente», quella d'aver «accettato di andare al fisco per dire che era lui (Mills, ndr) ad avere il controllo e la gestione delle offshore». Così come colpisce che Mills, circa le sue tre testimonianze a Milano nei processi a Berlusconi nel 1997, 1998 e 2003, rivendichi d'aver «risposto completamente in modo veritiero» (senza cioè dire mai il falso), ma ammetta d'aver «evitato di coinvolgere il proprio cliente». Come? «Trattenendo qualcosa di ciò che sapeva», perché «i fatti totali avrebbero causato davvero molti più seri imbarazzi in quel momento a Mr. Berlusconi». Come riassumono gli ispettori del Fisco inglesi, Mills «economizzando sulla verità ha reso la vita molto più facile per Mr. Berlusconi».
Il contenuto di questa « interview », fatta nel 2004 dal Fisco inglese a Mills, è stato recuperato dalla Procura di Milano che lo ha ora depositato alle difese di Berlusconi e Mills, già accusati (udienza preliminare dal 5 giugno) l'uno di aver corrotto l'altro con 600 mila dollari intermediati dallo scomparso manager Fininvest Carlo Bernasconi in relazione a due (1997 e 199
![[SM=g27989]](https://im0.freeforumzone.it/up/0/89/12259182.gif)
delle tre deposizioni di Mills in tribunale.
Al Fisco inglese, Mills ribadisce di escludere d'aver avuto i 600 mila dollari da Berlusconi. Conferma che li ebbe da Bernasconi, ma cambia versione sul motivo: un ringraziamento di Bernasconi per una felice speculazione su «hedge found» resa possibile da una preziosa «dritta» che Mills dice d'aver dato a Bernasconi dopo averla ricevuta da un «amico avvocato in pensione, Palladino»: cognome del custode delle azioni Enimont, arrestato nel 1993 e condannato per aver corrotto il giudice Diego Curtò.
Nel novembre 2004, però, come già ai pm milanesi, Mills ritratta pure con il Fisco inglese: i 600 mila dollari diventano soldi non più di Bernasconi, bensì di un cliente, l'armatore Diego Attanasio. Ma Mills cambia versione anche nel ritrattare: ai pm parla di soldi in custodia da Attanasio nel quadro di compravendite di navi, al Fisco inglese racconta invece d'un prestito da Attanasio. Peccato che Attanasio (che già l'aveva smentito sulla prima versione, spiegando che Mills gli aveva fatto firmare dei fogli in bianco), lo smentisca ora in un nuovo interrogatorio: nessun prestito, testimonia.
Luigi Ferrarella
********************************************************************************
The Sunday Times
May 28, 2006
Memo hints Jowell knew about 'bribe'
TESSA JOWELL, the culture secretary, faces fresh questions about her knowledge of an alleged £350,000 bribe to her husband David Mills following the discovery of new documents.
In a leaked note of a meeting with the Inland Revenue, Mills implies his wife knew more about his secretive financial affairs than has been previously claimed. The document raises questions about whether Jowell may have misled Sir Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary, when he investigated allegations that she had breached the ministerial code by failing to declare the payment.
Jowell had claimed her husband only told her about his £350,000 “gift” in August 2004. This was four years after Mills had received the cash and crucially a matter of days after he had agreed a settlement with the Revenue to pay tax on it.
In a statement she said this meant she was not obliged to declare her husband’s windfall as it had been classed as income rather than a gift by the time she found out about it. Gifts have to be declared by ministers but a spouse’s income does not.
However, in the note of a meeting with Revenue officials dated July 22, 2004, Mills implies his wife may have been aware of the payment before the tax settlement had been agreed.
During the meeting at the offices of the Revenue’s special compliance team in Bristol, an inspector asks Mills if he is now willing to pay tax on the money. The documents says: “DMDM [Mills] said he would consider the suggestion but did not believe that he should pay tax on the whole amount. He was certain that his wife would advise against it.”
The statement raises questions as to whether the couple might have already discussed the matter or were just about to.
But this is firmly denied by Mills. Yesterday he said: “I kept it to myself. It was a big problem for me. I didn’t want to worry her about it. I only told her about it when I had decided that I would pay the tax.”
A spokeswoman for Jowell said she stood by her statement to the cabinet secretary.
Jowell was drawn into the affair in February when The Sunday Times revealed she had jointly taken out a mortgage on their London home which was later repaid by the money alleged to be a bribe.
Prosecutors in Milan allege Mills, a London solicitor and friend of several cabinet ministers, was given the cash by figures connected to Silvio Berlusconi, the former Italian prime minister, for giving helpful evidence in two court actions. Both men deny the allegations.
Jowell and Mills, who are now estranged, have insisted she took no active interest in his financial affairs.
In an interview Mills said: “Our finances are totally separate. She has no involvement in this of any kind at any level — personal, financial or at any other level — except that she’s married to me.”
However, the document reveals Mills consulted his wife on an earlier payment from Berlusconi in 1996 and once consulted her on the appointment of a partner to his law firm.
The document is part of a file sent by Milan prosecutors to lawyers for Mills and Berlusconi ahead of a court hearing on June 5 that will decide whether they should stand trial. Prosecutors are said to be “100%” certain the case will go to trial.
It reveals Mills’s tax affairs had come to the attention of the special compliance office on three occasions. During the Bristol meeting an inspector expressed surprise that Mills had a taxable income of only £403 for the year 2000-01.
Mills, who was a director of 12 companies during that year, said this was because he had taken the year off to do a history of art course.
It has also emerged that Italian prosecutors have unearthed evidence of a possible second alleged “bribe” paid to Mills.
A document retrieved from Mills’s computer suggests that £134,000 was paid into his London bank account by a close associate of Berlusconi.
The prosecutors’ inquiries have previously focused on the £350,000 payment that Mills initially claimed had been given to him by Carlo Bernasconi, an executive with the former premier’s Fininvest company. However, the document from Mills’s computer suggests Bernasconi may have paid a total of nearly £500,000 that was split into two payments.
On Friday Mills said he had seen the document, which was taken from his computer during a police search in February, but could not explain the reference to the second payment.
“There was no other sum of that kind paid in. So I can’t make head or tail of that,” he said. “I think It may even be a typing error . . . It’s taken out of my computer and it may have been corrupted in some way but it certainly doesn’t bear any relationship to any fact.”
Mills said he had evidence to prove the first payment was from another rich Italian unconnected to Berlusconi.
The computer document, dated April 2004 and marked confidential, appears to be a memo written by Mills to his tax adviser ahead of the July meeting with the Revenue.
“He [Bernasconi] said the gift would be in part in a hedge fund holding, and a part in cash. In the result, he transferred to me $600,000 face value in the Torrey Fund in October 1999, and sent the equivalent of $250,000 to my bank in London,” it says.
The memo says there is no way of knowing whether Berlusconi himself had been involved with the payment.
Three months after the computer document was written, Mills was interviewed by Milan prosecutors and admitted the £350,000 was a gift from Berlusconi’s camp. He later retracted his confession, saying he had been bullied.
He now says the donor was Diego Attanasio, a Neapolitan shipowner, and has produced a signed document to prove this.
However, Attanasio denies giving the cash to Mills. In his testimony to prosecutors last month, he said: “I signed a dozen blank sheets of paper, at various levels on the page, which I left to him so that he could fill them in.”
Niccolo Ghedini, Berlusconi’s lawyer, has accused the Italian prosecutors of losing objectivity. “They simply want to bulldoze this through and put Berlusconi on trial. The climate in Milan is not objective,” he said.
Insight: John Follain, Gareth Walsh and Jonathan Calvert