Benfica: Rui Pinto clearing “surprising”, “unexpected”, “unheard of” | OneFootball

Benfica: Rui Pinto clearing “surprising”, “unexpected”, “unheard of” | OneFootball

In partnership with

Yahoo sports
Icon: Portal dos Dragões

Portal dos Dragões

·29 April 2026

Benfica: Rui Pinto clearing “surprising”, “unexpected”, “unheard of”

Gambar artikel:Benfica: Rui Pinto clearing “surprising”, “unexpected”, “unheard of”

The decision by Lisbon’s Central Criminal Court to acquit Rui Pinto of committing 241 crimes in the second case of the ‘Football Leaks’ affair was seen by the defense and by Benfica, an assistant in the proceedings, as “surprising”, “unexpected” and “unprecedented”.

The unanimous ruling by the panel of judges, presided over by Tânia Loureiro Gomes, declared the “invalidity” of the indictment brought by the Public Prosecutor’s Office (MP) against the creator of the ‘Football Leaks’ website, leading to his acquittal at Lisbon’s Central Criminal Court on 241 charges in this second trial.


Video OneFootball


The understanding that, in light of the law, the defendant cannot be tried a second time for the same facts was met with surprise by Rui Patrício, Benfica’s lawyer and an assistant in the proceedings, who believes this sets a historic precedent.

“Of course I was not expecting it, nor was I expecting to hear it [this reasoning] at this procedural stage, but it is what the Court decided. The decision is somewhat surprising and unprecedented and, in a way, if the Court is right, it is revolutionary for the Portuguese judicial system,” he said.

Rui Patrício also admitted that confirming the scope of a decision of this kind could trigger a “revolution in the Portuguese judicial system”, since it could call into question the outcome of several cases still ongoing in Portuguese courts.

“There are several cases like this, in which there are multiple offshoots, and some of them you know about, cases in which the defendants, for the same set of facts and the same historical period, are being tried and have already been tried more than once. Cases, names and operations that are well known and, therefore, if this thesis prevails, if the Court is right, if the Public Prosecutor’s Office does not appeal and does not win that appeal, this could cause a revolution in the Portuguese judicial system,” he added.

On the opposite side, and in response to these statements, Francisco Teixeira da Mota, Rui Pinto’s lawyer, acknowledged that this is a decision that “is not usual” and “innovative”, but one he clearly applauds.

“It was not an expected decision in the sense of matching what is usual. That is: this valuing of human rights, human dignity, in light of how the proceedings have unfolded, is not usual and therefore, in that sense, [the decision] is innovative,” he said with satisfaction.

Francisco Teixeira da Mota also stressed the “historic” nature of the decision taken by Lisbon’s Central Criminal Court, which, in his view, “honors Portuguese justice”.

“We are satisfied with this decision. It is a perverse strategy that we denounced and a decision that is unprecedented, even if [the Public Prosecutor’s Office] appeals. It may not stand, but this decision in itself is unprecedented,” he said.

In the second trial related to the ‘Football Leaks’ case, which began on January 13, 2025, Rui Pinto was tried and acquitted of a total of 241 crimes (201 counts of qualified unlawful access, 22 counts of aggravated violation of correspondence, and 18 counts of computer damage), linked to access to emails from Benfica and entities such as the League of Clubs, law firms, judges, prosecutors, the Tax Authority and the National Internal Security Network.

Rui Pinto was convicted in the first ‘Football Leaks’ case, in September 2023, and sentenced to a four-year suspended prison term for attempted extortion, aggravated violation of correspondence and unlawful access.

In November 2023, he was also convicted in France and sentenced to six months in prison, likewise suspended, for illegally accessing Paris Saint-Germain emails.

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇵🇹 here.

Lihat jejak penerbit