The judicial conflict between Wanda Nara and Mauro Icardi will add a new chapter, as it has been reported that the businesswoman is about to change lawyers and has already decided to be represented by the law firm of Fernando Burlando, with the direct sponsorship of Dr. Javier Ignacio Baños, known for his role in the defense of Julieta Prandi and in the case that ended with a 19-year sentence for Claudio Contardi.
According to what was revealed by Marina Calabró in her column and confirmed by sources close to the firm, the new legal team's strategy would begin by redefining the focus of the case as a "gender issue."
This argument would serve as the basis for requesting urgent precautionary measures and a series of immediate criminal actions against Icardi for repeated disobedience, due to the months of delay in the payment of the child support for his daughters.
Among the first steps, the Burlando and Baños team plans to request that Icardi be prohibited from leaving the country, in addition to asking for the retention of his passport and driver's license, until he regularizes the pending payments.
They are also considering filing a complaint for breach of the duties of a public official against Judge Hagopian, who is handling the case. They even evaluate filing a complaint with the Council of the Judiciary and taking the case to international bodies, such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, arguing that the State would not be adequately protecting the rights of the minor daughters.
On the other hand, Icardi's defense maintains that part of the player's assets, including the famous "House of Dreams," is already embargoed, and that Wanda would have exceeded the legal deadlines to submit her own income declarations, which would have prevented the correct amount of child support from being set.
Another point that Burlando and Baños are analyzing is a recent paragraph in the file that mentions the possibility of a search of Wanda's home in case her daughters are not delivered within the time set for the meeting with their father. The firm considers that this provision could represent a disproportionate coercive measure, and even "a threat" against the mother.
