“The charges filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office [PP] pertain to the period from 2016 to 2019. In the first trial, the period from 2015 to 2019 was in question. The same types of crimes and the same span of the defendant’s life are at issue. The charges concern the same period in Rui Pinto’s life, which was already exhaustively analyzed in the previous case,” emphasized attorney Luísa Teixeira da Mota in her closing arguments.
Rui Pinto’s defense found it “shocking and absurd for a layperson to accept that someone already tried for the same facts and held in pre-trial detention in a high-profile case is returning to court years later to face the same charges for the same period,” urging for a “serious reflection.”
“Regarding the 201 crimes of unauthorized access, the PP considers that each alleged breach of an email account constitutes a crime of illicit access. Accessing multiple mailboxes hosted on the same server might constitute several crimes of correspondence violation, but not multiple crimes of unauthorized access,” the lawyer highlighted concerning the number of crimes involved.
Thus, the defense argues that Rui Pinto “cannot be convicted of unauthorized access crimes,” claiming that “there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant of aggravated correspondence violation” and emphasizing that the computer damage crimes were “fabricated to increase the number of charges” since the witnesses “did not even feel the access, meaning there was no damage.”
“Benfica alleges that it was not crowned champions five times due to the players’ and management’s state of anxiety. Players regularly face the pressure of thousands of fans in stadiums or on social media, injuries, and family issues. Now, they want to convince this court that Benfica’s players underperformed on the field due to this. This ridicules the athletes themselves,” she asserted.
Luísa Teixeira da Mota referenced two past interviews with Rui Vitória, then coach of the ‘Reds’, in which he was asked about the issue and responded that “it was never a topic of conversation” in the locker room, and a recent interview with Luís Filipe Vieira, the club’s former president, on TVI, on August 19, where he cited a goal conceded in the 90th minute as the reason for losing the championship.
“Benfica had one point less that season compared to the previous one. It was a minimal difference, and they did not even perform worse. This notion that the club collapsed is merely dramatic fiction,” she concluded, justifying that Benfica did not lose sponsorships.
In closing, the lawyer had no doubts about portraying Rui Pinto as a whistleblower, as the disclosed information was used by journalistic consortia, unveiling “truths that many did not want revealed” to the entire society.
“Punishing someone harshly who exposed crimes, even if obtaining information through illicit means, sends an ambiguous message to society. The system is harsh with whistleblowers and lenient with those accused. This inversion serves neither justice nor society. Rui Pinto’s defense does not ask for him to be seen as a hero, victim, or saint. He committed acts that violate criminal law and deserves a legal response. It only asks that he be judged with balance and justice,” she resolved.
Rui Pinto stands trial for a total of 241 crimes: 201 of qualified unauthorized access, 22 of aggravated correspondence violation, and 18 of computer damage.
In September 2023, he was sentenced in the ‘Football Leaks’ case by the Lisbon Central Criminal Court to four years in prison with a suspended sentence, for crimes of attempted extortion, aggravated correspondence violation, and unauthorized access.
