The prosecutor’s office rejects that the Higher Sports Council charges in the process and Barcelona protests Madrid’s presence, although it will admit it was a popular allegation with a bail of 500,000 euros.
FC Barcelona is one of those affected by the ‘Negreira Case’. The club regards it as such, having asked Barcelona’s Investigative Court No. 1 to admit him on a double condition: he is being investigated for crimes of corruption in sport, improper administration and falsification of commercial documents and private for prosecution. In a document submitted to the court, the Barcelona unit believes it is “in a position to be offended and harmed by the alleged commission of an improper administration crime” because of payments made to the club’s property for 17 years. The “damage” is done. José María Enríquez Negreira, former vice-president of the Technical Committee of Referees (CTA) between 1994 and 2018, and his son Javier Enríquez Romero.
Barca recalls that the prosecutor’s office pointed out in its initial complaint that the companies Dasnil and Nilsud, owned by Enriquez Negreira, were paid more than 7.3 million euros between 2001 and 2018, which “were not provided for in the laws on real remuneration”. represents the actual remuneration made.” Neither the club nor approved by the General Assembly due to which it lacked a title to justify it. In short, the said assumptions had no legal or statutory backing”. For this reason, Barca’s lawyers point out that, continuing the argument, “there has been an alleged mismanagement of the club’s assets, resulting in losses to it. Has happened.”
For this reason, in its letter to which Medium had access, Barca believes that “the service was formally billed twice, regardless of the existence of a real and effective provision of arbitration technical advisory service”. shall be, in addition, through one of the said billing channels through the merchants who received commission for the same”. In this sense, they refer to the club’s payments to Negreira’s son through a partnership with a former manager, Josep Contreras, who had died a few months earlier. Barça paid the amount to this company for advisory services and analysis reports carried out by Javier Enríquez, not only in relation to refereeing the matches of the Catalan team but also their direct rivals such as Real Madrid and Atlético de Madrid and later Contreras Negreira. paid to. Son’s company by placing an important commission.
In the process opened at Barcelona’s Investigative Court No. 1, Barca has also opposed the fact that Real Madrid is a private prosecutor, noting that it does not harm the crimes that are being investigated. They argue that in any case it would be La Liga, as the organizer of the competition, that could present itself as affected in the process. Barcelona also denies that Madrid is a popular charge, although it leaves the door open to the possibility, in a supportive way, if the White Club pays the €500,000 bail, noting that this season For his income is 770 million euros: ” The bail amount does not seem high or excessive”. The court has not given its verdict yet.
Furthermore, the prosecutor’s office rejected the presence of the Higher Sports Council as an accused in the process, noting that its “nature” is “purely administrative, without recognition of its own disciplinary powers”. as well as urges sanction of conduct which, in case of exceeding the limits of a purely level playing field, should be referred to a judicial or financial authority to take action”. He therefore believes that he can “neither be harmed nor offended” despite the organizational powers of the arbitration system. The state’s attorney insisted on being present at the proceedings and La Liga or the Spanish Football Federation did not oppose.
The prosecutor also declines the extension of the investigation into Enriquez Romero as requested by La Liga because it “precipitates” at this point in time that “there is a lot of evidence.” The Public Ministry urges the Civil Guard to wait for the report given by the court before taking a decision. For the time being, the ‘Negrera Case’ continues to accumulate petitions from parties awaiting any resolution.
Audit under scanner
On the other hand, La Liga has requested new investigative measures in court, indicating that the payment by the current Barca board of directors of tax contributions totaling more than one million euros after an inspection by the tax agency is an “implied recognition”. Is. ” that Nilsad and Dasnil’s invoices “did not correspond to the provision of services that were documented in them, but also transferred this information to the club’s annual accounts.” In addition, La Liga recalls that its partners have to pay a ” provide an “independent” audit that would indicate the appropriate organization and management model for crime prevention and to respond to this request Barca established a Barca Tax Risk Committee in 2016.
Thus, La Liga asked the Civil Guard to take a statement from those members of the committee as witnesses because each audit indicated a “tax risk map” and none of them took into account payments to Negreira companies. Kept what ended. Being traced by the tax agency and led to this criminal process first in the prosecutor’s office and then in the judicial investigation. The league recalls that between 2004 and 2009, the years in which Laporta was chairman during his first phase, 1.09 million euros were paid to the companies of the former number 2 of the referee and that the compliance audit of the club’s financial reports to the treasury “There is no materialization of any financial risk involved” of the Barca unit since July last year, despite the inspection by the CBI.
It is also claimed that “due diligence” and ‘forensic’ audits commissioned by former Barca presidents, such as Sandro Rosell or Laporta, did not contribute to ascertaining “what the agency’s inspection did”. , improper payments to Negreiras and his corporate network” despite the fact that “quantifiable and markedly lower amounts” were found, such as the 53,000 euros spent by Laporta on “restaurants, nightclubs, perfumes and cigarettes” or 4 million in unreasonable security expenses”.
As per the norms of Trust Project