The Court of Review strengthens the system of the Prosecutor’s Office and rejects the political readings of the case: for the judges Hannoun is not a sympathizer, but part of a structured fundraising network. The declared humanitarian purposes do not erase the criminal relevance, nor does the distinction between the social wing and terrorism hold.
The choice of Court of Review of Genoa to leave Mohammed Hannoun in preventive detention it is not limited to confirming a precautionary measure already ordered, but takes on a meaning that goes beyond normal judicial control. With the provision of 16 January, the judges outline a clear and deliberate position: adhering to the approach of the Prosecutor’s Office, strengthening its legal stability and removing it from the ideological interpretations and political simplifications that have accompanied, in recent months, the public debate on Gaza and up Hamas.
The central issue of the ordinance concerns the definition of the role attributed to Hannoun, identified not as a marginal figure or occasional sympathizer, but as an integral part of a structured financing mechanism. According to the panel, the suspect did not act out of emotional attachment or abstract militancy, but rather as a conscious element of a stable network, capable of ensuring economic resources to Hamas. A system that would make use of entities formally involved in social issues to channel funds to the organization, contributing in a concrete way to its operational capacity and resilience. Ample space is reserved for the description of the functioning of these associations, represented by the judges as operational tools and not as simple neutral containers. The collection initiatives were presented with charitable purposes, but included – according to the ordinance – within a framework of full awareness of the final destination of the money. It is on this point that the Court makes a clear interpretative choice: the declared humanitarian nature of the activities does not neutralize the criminal relevance of the financing, nor does the fact that Hamas also performs administrative or local government functions.
The college explicitly rejects the defensive line that attempts to separate an alleged political and social dimension of Hamas by its armed component. A distinction which, in the opinion of the magistrates, is not supported either in facts or in law. Hamas is characterized as a unitary entity, equipped with an overall strategy in which assistance, consensus, propaganda and violence contribute to a common objective. In this scheme, the associative structures attributable to Hannoun they are considered functional parts of a broader system, capable of guaranteeing financial continuity and operational coverage. Particularly relevant is the passage dedicated to the usability of documents acquired through international cooperation, in particular those coming from the Israeli authorities.
The defense had contested its usability, recalling the risk of evidence conditioned by political interests and without the guarantees of cross-examination. The Court he liquidates the exception with a motivation intended to set the tone: these are not anonymous or informal materials, but documents officially transmitted within the channels of judicial collaboration, acquired according to the procedures established by Italian law. There foreign origin, the judges clarify, it does not in itself imply illegitimacy or automatic unusability. There Israeli documentationwhich is not anonymous, is considered assessable especially in the precautionary phase, where definitive responsibility is not ascertained but the consistency of the evidence. The college also underlines that these elements are not isolated, but are confirmed in wiretaps, financial movements, association relations and declarations collected throughout the country. In this way, it is excluded that the accusatory system is based on unilateral or unverifiable sources.
The center of gravity of the analysis thus shifts from the controversy over the provenance of the evidence to the overall solidity of the circumstantial framework. In the precautionary phase – the judges recall – a full demonstration is not required, but a global evaluation capable of passing the test of reasonableness: contesting a single element is not enough, it is necessary to undermine the entire accusatory architecture. On the evidentiary side, the ordinance enhances the internal coherence of the elements collected. The intercepted conversations they are not considered isolated phrases or mere rhetorical expressions, but signals of awareness, operational continuity and sharing of objectives. The vocabulary used, the references to the centrality of the funds, contacts with top Hamas officialsthe role attributed to foreign financiers and the importance of economic support in the group’s strategy take on, in the Court’s reading, a unique meaning, incompatible with the reconstruction of a simple information or solidarity activity. According to the judges of the Review, the associations attributable to Mohammed Hannoun did not carry out humanitarian activity in a neutral sense, but operated as cogs in a stable system of financial support for Hamas. The fundraising, although presented in a solidarity key, was characterized by continuity, organization and reiteration, elements that exclude an episodic or emergency intervention.
The resources moved are considered suitable for strengthening the organization as a whole. The ordinance highlights the suspect’s full awareness of the final destination of the money and clarifies that humanitarian coverage is not sufficient to exclude the criminal relevance of the disputed conduct. In this context it is interesting to read the lawyer «Mariangela Di Biase: the ordinance highlights excessive and almost contradictory caution regarding AVI material. In several passages the judges feel the need to clarify that those documents, although acquired, are in fact excluded from the decision-making perimeter, as if their mere presence were embarrassing. It is a questionable choice, which seems dictated more by fear of political debate than by a transparent procedural evaluation. Fortunately, this self-limitation does not affect the outcome: Hannoun he remains in precautionary custody in prison, a sign that the circumstantial structure holds up even without those documents. But precisely for this reason the impression remains of a missed opportunity for clarity and argumentative courage”
