When I turned to Eni's own Ethics Committee

In the previous publication, we saw that, just two days after my dismissal, I sent a formal letter to the CEO of AGIP do Brasil requesting that the circumstances surrounding my dismissal be reviewed impartially.

No reply was ever received.

Faced with that silence, I chose to follow the path established by the Company itself.

It was not I who chose this course of action. It was Eni's own Code of Ethics that instructed employees to report irregularities and to rely on the Company's internal ethics and governance mechanisms.

On 1 February 2002, I formally invoked Eni's Code of Ethics and submitted a communication to the Company's Ethics Committee, copying the President and the entire Board of Directors of AGIP do Brasil.

At that moment, my objective remained exactly the same.

I was not seeking compensation.

I was not pursuing litigation.

I was not looking for public exposure.

I simply wanted Eni itself to examine the facts in light of the available documentation.

My decision to approach the Ethics Committee was not accidental.

It was the natural consequence of the Company's failure to respond to the letter I had sent to the CEO in August 2001.

If the Code of Ethics required irregularities to be reported and properly examined, then that was precisely the mechanism I expected to see operating.

Once again, I presented the facts.

Once again, I made myself fully available to provide documents and clarifications.

Once again, I requested only that the Company conduct an independent, impartial and objective review.

This document demonstrates that, long before approaching any Brazilian or Italian authority, I sought to use Eni's own internal governance mechanisms.

At that time, I genuinely believed that a company which publicly affirmed that ethics was at the heart of its corporate culture would carefully examine a report submitted by one of its own employees, especially when that report was supported by documentary evidence and accompanied by the whistleblower's permanent willingness to cooperate with any independent investigation.

Once again, the purpose of this publication is not to persuade anyone.

It is simply to demonstrate, through the chronology and the documentary evidence, that every available internal institutional avenue was pursued before any external initiative was ever taken.

Because, from this point forward, the documents will continue to speak for themselves.

To be continued on Friday.

✅ Learn more

1️⃣ Letter to the ENI Ethics Committee (01 February 2002):
🔹 Original Portuguese Version
🔹 English Version

2️⃣ Chronology of Facts for the Reconstruction of Events

3️⃣ Memorial (1999 - 2025)

Letter to the CEO of Eni's Brazilian subsidiary

In the previous publication, we saw that the report of the irregularities came before my dismissal.

Today, the chronology reveals another equally important fact.

Just two days after my dismissal from AGIP do Brasil (on August 3, 2001), I sent a formal letter to the Company's CEO challenging the facts that had led to my dismissal - following the guidance of the Human Resources Director.

At that moment, I still believed that everything could be clarified internally through an impartial review of the facts.

At that time, there were no lawsuits.

There were no public disputes.

There was no public exposure of the case.

There was only a former employee seeking to understand the reasons for his dismissal and believing that they could be reconsidered in light of the facts.
This letter occupies an important place in the chronology because it demonstrates that my account of the events was not developed years later.

It was presented immediately, while the events were still unfolding.

More than challenging the decision itself, the letter requested that the Company carefully review the events that had preceded my dismissal.

The objective was simple.

To allow the Company itself to reassess the facts before a decision based on incorrect information produced permanent consequences.

Unfortunately, this would not be the last time I brought this documentation to the attention of the Company's senior management.

Over the following years, new communications would be submitted to Eni's Board of Directors, always accompanied by documents intended to provide an objective reconstruction of the events.

Once again, the purpose of this publication is not to persuade anyone.

It is simply to demonstrate, through the chronology and the documentary evidence, that my challenge to the Company's decision began immediately after the events that gave rise to the Flinto Case.

Because, from this point forward, the documents will continue to speak for themselves.

To be continued on Thursday.


✅ Learn more:

1️⃣ Letter to the CEO of AGIP do Brasil (03 August 2001):
🔹 Original Portuguese Version
🔹 English Version

2️⃣ Chronology of Facts for the Reconstruction of Events

3️⃣ Memorial (1999 - 2025)