The Madrid Prosecutor's Office has resorted to absolution from the former soccer player Xabi Alonso of three crimes against the Public Treasury for avoiding payment of five million euros in the fiscal years of 2010, 2011 and 2012. And he has also requested that the trial be repeated, as reported by a tax source.
In the appeal, the Public Ministry also challenges the acquittal of its advisors Iván Zaldúa and Ignasi Maestre. He argues bluntly that the assessment that the Madrid audience made the tests was "incorrect", as well as its resolution suffers from "legal rationality".
In the acquittal, the magistrates were against the position of the Prosecutor's Office in determining that it was "adjusted" to the tax regime and that the facts did not constitute a crime. The prosecutor downgraded the penalty request from five years to two and a half years for paying three million euros.
Reasons for the resource
He first reason for the appeal stresses that "several elements of evidence valued in the sentence were not subject to contradiction at the oral hearing," while the second notes that "the assessment of the evidence made by the court embodied in the judgment is incorrect."
For the prosecutor, the contested judgment centers the object of analysis, in order to determine if the defendant had committed the crimes against the Treasury, in the reality of the contract of transfer of image rights to the Kardzali entity dated August 1, 2009, understanding that "the commission of crimes could only be imputed if such contract did not respond to reality because it is an absolute simulation as the accusations defend."
Remember, for example, that the sentence speaks of an "unusual" way of behaving on the part of the accused although at the time of motivating their acquittal the magistrates allude to a conviction built on the statements given in investigation stage from third parties "who were not subject to contradiction or immediacy".
"Lack of legal rationality"
He stresses that "he fails to understand" the reason why the magistrates dissect the statements rendered in investigation proceedings "Discarding, however, part of the actions taken in the oral trial." The appeal also states that the contested decision suffers from both "insufficiency and lack of legal rationality in factual motivation."
The Prosecutor's Office states that its discrepancies with the magistrates are not "evaluative", but that the core of such discrepancies places it "in the lack of rationality of factual motivation based on the evidence practiced in the oral trial and the coherence between them. "
Hence, he insists in his writing that the probative elements are determined in a "logical" and "reasonable" way because the facts that are judged have the "sufficient" entity so that the fiscal Ministery I am interested in a sentence of "greater" height given that Alonso stopped taxing all amounts derived from the exploitation of his image rights amounting to more than five million euros.
Exploitation of image rights
In conclusion, the appeal emphasizes that following the tests carried out, it has been proven that Kardzali It is a structure "exclusively" intended to avoid paying tax obligations of Xabi Alonso and that, therefore, the transfer of their rights to it "can only be described as absolute simulation". In fact, according to the fiscal resource, the Prosecutor's Office understands that Kardzali was "solely" dedicated to issuing invoices "and therefore was an instrument of income and payments."
Since the sentence concludes that several companies paid the defendant through the Kardzali company for the exploitation of their image rights, the representative of the Public Ministry asks, "Why does it conclude that they paid the defendant if he had yielded the exploitation of the image rights to a company? "This circumstance attracts the attention of the Prosecutor and confirms that the entity constituted" an instrument of income and payments ".