PHOTO: Tolo Ramon / Video: ATLAS
In his indictment, the prosecutor Pedro Horrach concludes that the Infanta, imputed, on the bench, would be in a position of helplessness, treated unequally and involved manner based on mere suspicion. According to the prosecutor, the Court of Palma is based on a “could have known” that reverses the burden of proof and perverts the principle of presumption of innocence. This is the tenor of the statements of the prosecutor to reel in an annex, the reasons why it considers that Cristina de Borbón is innocent and should not be judged by two tax offenses.
Horrach believes Court judges keep it charged with stunted arguments and assumptions, giving the reason the judge Castro and denying it to him. According to the prosecutor, arguing that the sister of King knew or upheld “somehow” tax crimes of her husband, in criminal law, amounts to mere conjecture.
The called doctrine Booty , why can not open trial against Cristina de Borbón only instances of the popular accusation, floats on many pages. Pedro Horrach emphasizes that if the State Bar and the prosecution, who are holders of the legal supposedly injured, do not exercise criminal action against Infanta because they feel that can not be charged offenses, this role can not usurp a third party not harmed a clear reference to the union Clean Hands, who really wants to sit on the bench Cristina de Borbón.
The prosecutor does not recognize the existence of at least circumstantial evidence and objective participation by Cristina Bourbon in the alleged crimes against the Treasury attributed to your spouse Iñaki Urdangarin. Create undeniable that, apart from the fact of corporate participation in society Infanta Aizoon not least circumstantial account of cooperation with the fraud described her husband. Hundreds of partners fraud gangs managers not companies inspected by Hacienda unpunished in Spain recalls.
In the letter of qualification, the prosecutor asked the file to the sister of King and is opposed to opening judgment against it with one popular accusation
There are inconsistencies and four distinct and incompatible hypotheses, says the prosecutor on the imputation of the Infanta
Horrach claims that the Court of respect for the principle of equality, should prevent the interpretative criteria of criminal and procedural laws become drawers tailors, where “anything goes”.
When comparing cars Hearing that mention is made of the Infanta detects inconsistencies and four different, incompatible hypotheses about their involvement. Pedro Horrach argues that the writings of the room are the demonstration that the same facts and circumstances can be used for radically different interpretations
.
For the accuser, the infant is an irrelevant partner Aizoon
The magistrates deny the complaint in July 2012 and November 2014 continues, with the same data, After delving without test results of the single box Aizoon, the ratio of the Infanta with the hiring of domestic staff, attendance at general meetings, personal expenses and the amount of income and expenses.
The fraud, malicious will is incompatible with its denial “had no reason to know” or mere suspicion “has learned” highlights the prosecutor. The Court passed the “unapologetic” of “ignorance” to “should know”. Del “had no reason to know” the “could know”
.
Simple helper or decorative element passes without interruption, to “imputed” believes Horrach
The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor further that if the Infanta “had no reason to know” questions the family business Aizoon was an FVC screen, used by Iñaki Urdangarin, based on the statements and evidence obtained to seize public funds why did they know it was a holding company to defraud the Treasury?
Cristina de Borbón is in Aizoon, in the constitution in 2003 and attributed tax offenses are 2007 and 2008. If there was a corporate network and the Infanta know the instrumental nature of societies Nóos group is inconsistent state that knew, however, fictional character and criminal purposes Aizoon, consider the tax.
The prosecution notes that nothing is said in the final order of the Court to justify the dual status given to Cristina de Borbón, which Simple helper or decorative element, passed seamlessly to “imputed” as a result of an alleged position “guarantor” on Aizoon entity.
The Infanta in Aizoon partner is irrelevant, for the accuser who believes it is impossible to pinpoint the contribution of Dona Cristina in tax evasion of income tax spouse
ridiculous costs only 352 euros, the card cargadados Aizoon
The Office notes that the personal expenses of the Infanta by credit card Aizoon are “ridiculous”. Highlights that there is only proof of payments under this card. L’escarabat restaurant bill negre amounting to 352 euros of August 21, 2007
This example refutes statements such as “managed accounts” of the entity to charge them the cost of their bank cards. Believed to be a statement at least risky the “handle” the accounts because the legal, accounting and social concept of a corporate entity has little to do with the act of “spend” and submit proof.
No comments:
Post a Comment