Italy’s Top Court Orders Further Review of Evidence in Hamas Financing Case
Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation has ordered a fresh look at the evidence against Mohammad Hannoun, a Palestinian activist arrested in December on suspicion of financing Hamas.
Al JazeeraItaly’s Supreme Court of Cassation last month ordered a comprehensive re-evaluation of the evidence against Mohammad Hannoun, describing it as too generic. The 63-year-old Jordanian national and architect living in Genoa was arrested on December 27 on suspicion of financing Hamas through the Association of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, which he heads.
Italian authorities accused Hannoun of raising approximately 7 million euros that allegedly reached Hamas.
The evidence consisted of Israeli intelligence files sent by an official identified only as Avi, later named as Avi Abramson, along with open-source online information whose provenance and reliability had not been established. The files purportedly originated from hard drives found in Gaza hospitals al-Shifa, al-Rantisi and Jabalia, as well as the Maghazi refugee camp, after those sites were taken over by Israeli forces.
The material was transmitted to Italy through spontaneous information exchange rather than established international cooperation channels such as Eurojust, and the files lacked a documented chain of custody.
Operation Domino resulted in the arrest of nine people, including Hannoun, whom investigators described as the head of the Italian cell of Hamas. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni expressed appreciation and satisfaction regarding the operation. Nicola Canestrini, one of the lawyers representing the nine defendants, liaised with representatives of Amin Abu Rashid, a Dutch national of Palestinian origin who was acquitted in May 2026 by the Rotterdam District Court of financing Hamas after a years-long legal battle that included one year in jail.
The evidence against Abu Rashid consisted of Israeli government reports and unverified newspaper articles. Canestrini and his team argued in court that unverifiable evidence collected by a state undergoing proceedings at the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice was inadmissible.


