Benfica challenges Rui Pinto acquittal, alleges serious legal, procedural and factual errors | OneFootball

Benfica challenges Rui Pinto acquittal, alleges serious legal, procedural and factual errors | OneFootball

In partnership with

Yahoo sports
Icon: OffsAIde

OffsAIde

·29 September 2026

Benfica challenges Rui Pinto acquittal, alleges serious legal, procedural and factual errors

Article image:Benfica challenges Rui Pinto acquittal, alleges serious legal, procedural and factual errors

Benfica have appealed Rui Pinto’s acquittal in the second Football Leaks case, taking the matter to the Tribunal da Relação.

According to Glorioso 1904, the club filed the appeal in June after the Lisbon Criminal Court cleared Pinto of 241 offences linked to unauthorised access to Benfica emails and other entities.


OneFootball Videos


The club’s lawyers argue the judgment contains legal, procedural and factual errors. They say the judges overstepped into matters they believe should fall to the Constitutional Court.

The 29 April ruling found the indictment invalid, said Pinto had been treated in three different ways and that his human dignity was not respected. It unanimously cited alleged breaches of constitutional principles and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Benfica’s appeal contests that reasoning, challenges the reading of article 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and rejects the view that the Public Prosecutor breached constitutional norms. The case centres on alleged unlawful access to the club’s emails and those of other organisations.

In September 2023, Pinto received a four-year suspended sentence in the first Football Leaks trial for attempted extortion, aggravated breach of correspondence and unlawful access. In the second case he had faced 201 counts of qualified unlawful access, 22 of aggravated breach of correspondence and 18 of computer damage, involving multiple institutions, including the league and the tax authority.

“Artificial intelligence was used to assist in creating this article based on reporting from the original source quoted.”

View publisher imprint