2023-09-29 07:31:00
BarcelonaSince the Prosecutor’s Office filed the complaint for the Negreira case in March, three crimes had been investigated: that of sports corruption, that of document falsification and that of disloyal administration. But the investigating judge in charge of the case, Joaquín Aguirre, suspects that the case of sports corruption will lead him nowhere. He has not found any evidence to prove it and, in an attempt to find out where the 7.5 million that Barça was paying for 18 years to the companies of José María Enríquez Negreira and his son went, Javi Enríquez, has opened a new line of research focused on bribery.
The big change it entails, beyond making sense of the magistrate’s theses, is that a crime of bribery comes to court at the hands of a popular jury, which is responsible for determining whether the accused are guilty or not. They will be, if the case goes to trial this way, nine people chosen at random registered in the province of Barcelona. Of course, the initial selection is wider, of up to thirty citizens. After submitting to the questions of the prosecutor and the defense, they end up choosing which nine – it’s always an odd number, to avoid ties in the voting – end up being part of it.
The statute of limitations in the case leaves Laporta out of the indictment
Magistrate Aguirre’s hearing begins with a graph that includes the payments made by Barça to Dasnil 95 and Nilsad, the companies owned by the Negreira family, over almost two decades. The names of the four presidents who were in office while payments were made appear: Joan Gaspart (2001-03), Joan Laporta (2003-10), Sandro Rosell (2010-14) and Josep Maria Bartomeu (2014-18). The last two are being investigated, but not Gaspart or Laporta. The fact that a bribe is now being investigated will not change this fact either, since in any of the cases, for both of them the crime has already expired, analyzes criminalist David Aineto.
The only possibility to extend the statute of limitations to 15 years is if the judge considers that it is a crime of continued bribery. Thus, it could go back to 2008. But, according to fellow penalty taker Eloi Castellarnau, it would only affect Barça as a legal entity, but not Laporta, because he left the club in 2010. “He can be responsible for what he did, but he cannot be held responsible for what Rosell or Bartomeu did afterwards. Therefore, there is no continuity.” In addition, he emphasizes the fact that the invoices were not paid by the president, but by the club as a legal entity.
The other point that generates controversy refers to the fact that it qualifies the members of the Technical Committee of Arbitrators (CTA) as officials. And from here derives the conclusions to investigate the crime of bribery. The committee belongs to the Spanish Football Federation (RFEF), which according to its statutes is of a private nature. In fact, during the conflict with the female players over the Rubiales case, the Government explained that the RFEF could not intervene precisely because it was not a publicly owned entity.
The sporting consequences that the case may have for Barça
Finally, and regarding the possible consequences that the case may have for Barça, in the short term the entity must not suffer. The crime of bribery, if it ends up being convicted, would involve a financial penalty, analyzes the specialist in sports law Xavier Albert Canal. Only in the worst cases could a temporary suspension of the activity or, in the extreme case, a dissolution be reached. Even so, the experts consider it “highly unlikely” that this extreme will be reached and that, at the most, Barça should end up paying a fine.
Now, if the club happens to be investigated, this will also mean that UEFA will have to review its situation to validate its participation in European competitions. That won’t be until the end of this season anyway.
#short #term #Barça #Laporta #suffer