Eni & Me: The reconstruction of events

Indeed, my unfair dismissal took place in 2001 by “action” and “omission” of ENI’s controlled company, AGIP Brazil, and ENI's attempt of getting rid of, disowning, and rejecting its “Brazilian child” has the sole purpose of shying away from its responsibilities regarding my case.

By saying “action”, I mean the fact that ENI's Brazilian subsidiary dismissed me in “retaliation”, and I say “omission” because both AGIP Brazil and (especially) ENI didn't “protect the whistleblower” as determines the company's Code of Ethics.

Note that, contrary to what ENI claims, there can be no difficulties when it comes to the “reconstruction of events” because it is, without a shadow of a doubt, something absolutely possible, especially because numerous developments have taken place throughout these years since my dismissal in 2001.

Also note that, ENI continues to pretend not to see that every event of our story, from 2001 to this present day, have been duly proven by me through rich, abundant, and robust documentation. As a result, when reconstructing those events, I was able to transform the facts presented by me into indisputable, uncontroversial, irrefutable, and undeniable facts.

Now, if the facts and the dozens of supporting documents presented by me were not enough to “reconstruct the events”, then what would be the reasons for two renowned Italian journalists to publish my story with ENI in an investigative book? And why would another journalist, who's also a critical shareholder of the company, take my case to be discussed during four different shareholders' meetings?

To deconstruct, once and for all, ENI’s narratives, it is absolutely essential to describe the "chronology of the facts", which are based on the series of supporting documents that were presented to the NCP Brazil in this Specific Instance, as well as, repeatedly, to the ENI, throughout all these years, to “reconstruct the events” - a total of “48” events (Doc. 01) - that the company insists on claiming that is a difficult and almost impossible task to accomplish:

With the “chronological” presentation of “fully proven facts” that are sufficiently capable of “reconstructing the events”, ENI needs to answer two questions:

a) What would be the result of a “due diligence” carried out by ENI's Audit Department if the facts and supporting documents presented in this “chronology of facts” for “reconstruction of events” were analyzed?

b) Would a company specialized in corporate investigations — by analyzing the facts and supporting documents presented to ENI in my “proposal for amicable settlement”, and all the facts and supporting documents elaborated by the parties (Submitter and Respondent) in these allegations of non-compliance with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises conducted by NCP Brazil — come to a conclusion about ENI's strategy regarding the “Flinto case”: a systemic imposition of instrumentally engineered retaliation and victimization — with attacks on my honor and reputation — that distorts and manipulates the truth to exempt itself from its own responsibility regarding all the damage I have suffered over these almost 21 years?