The investigation surrounding the incident at the Constellation venue has entered a critical phase, following public statements made during the latest hearing by Jacques Moretti, one of the club’s co-owners.

According to Italian media reports, Moretti categorically denied any responsibility, stating that he had complied with all required safety measures and insisting that he was not at fault.

“I did everything necessary in terms of safety. I am not guilty. This is not my responsibility,” he reportedly told investigators.

His remarks have intensified public scrutiny, as questions continue to mount over accountability, oversight, and decision-making in the events that led to the incident.

“I Am Also a Victim,” Says Co-Owner

Moretti went further during his testimony, describing himself as a victim of the situation.

He maintained that all safety inspections conducted at the venue were “irreproachable” and that the club met regulatory standards at the time of the incident.

As co-owner of the Constellation, Moretti argued that no warnings were issued to him regarding potential hazards related to the venue’s materials or layout.

In particular, he insisted that he was never informed about the flammable nature of the foam panels installed within the premises — a detail now central to the investigation.

Shifting Responsibility to the Municipality

A major point of contention in Moretti’s defense is his assertion that responsibility lies not with the club’s ownership, but with the local municipality and its employees.

According to his account, champagne bottles and fireworks were used during the event without his initiative or instruction.

“They did it themselves. I simply did not forbid it,” he reportedly stated.

This distinction — between authorizing an action and failing to prohibit it — has become a focal point of debate among legal observers following the case.

Investigators are now tasked with determining whether omission carries the same weight as direct authorization under applicable safety and liability laws.

The Question of Oversight and Communication

At the heart of the case lies a broader question: who was ultimately responsible for ensuring that all activities within the venue complied with safety regulations?

Moretti’s claim that he was unaware of the fire risk associated with the foam panels raises concerns about communication between inspectors, municipal authorities, and venue operators.

If the materials posed a known risk, investigators will need to establish whether warnings were issued, ignored, or never delivered.

Conversely, if no such warnings existed, scrutiny may shift toward regulatory standards and inspection protocols.

Inspections Described as “Irreproachable”

Moretti has repeatedly emphasized that all inspections conducted prior to the incident were passed without issue.

He maintains that the venue had been reviewed and approved by the appropriate authorities, reinforcing his argument that responsibility cannot rest solely with ownership.

This assertion places additional pressure on inspectors and municipal employees, whose actions — or inactions — are now being examined as part of the broader investigation.

Legal Experts Warn Against Simplistic Conclusions

While no formal charges have been announced, legal analysts caution against drawing early conclusions.

Cases involving shared responsibility often hinge on subtle distinctions between compliance, negligence, and oversight.

Whether failing to explicitly ban fireworks constitutes negligence remains a central legal question.

Similarly, determining whether venue owners have an obligation to independently assess material risks — beyond official inspections — could influence the outcome.

Public Reaction and Mounting Pressure

Public reaction to Moretti’s statements has been sharply divided.

Some view his defense as a reasonable response from a business owner who relied on official inspections and municipal oversight.

Others argue that ultimate responsibility for safety must rest with venue ownership, regardless of who physically carried out specific actions.

As attention intensifies, pressure continues to build on investigators to clarify where accountability lies.

Investigation Still Ongoing

Authorities have not released full details of the investigation, nor have they confirmed whether additional hearings or charges are forthcoming.

For now, the case remains open, with multiple lines of inquiry examining safety procedures, communication failures, and decision-making processes leading up to the incident.

What is clear is that the question of responsibility remains unresolved — and the answers may have significant implications for venue operations and regulatory enforcement going forward.