The Supreme Court considers that no crime was committed entirely abroad
The Prosecutor asks for two years in prison and a 10 million fine for Neymar for corruption
- Advertisement -
The National Court sends the signing of Neymar by Bara to the courts of Barcelona
Neymar Jr must return to Barcelona but to sit on a bench but not on a football field but before a court. This is how the Supreme Court has considered it, which has rejected the appeal presented by the private prosecution, the DIS company, against the decision of the National Court of June 2019 to send the case known as ‘Neymar case 2’ to the Barcelona Court for let it be judged. Specifically, the footballer himself, his parents, and the former presidents of FC Barcelona, Josep Mara Bartomeu and Sandro Rosell, are being prosecuted for alleged crimes of corruption between individuals and fraud by granting simulated contracts to the detriment of a third party.
Everyone must sit on a bench for their alleged relationship with these crimes committed during the signing of the Brazilian footballer by FC Barcelona. The case began with a complaint from the DIS company, which owns a part of the player’s rights, who wanted the trial to be held at the National Court as, according to them, there were crimes committed entirely abroad. However, the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the National Court as the crimes “were committed in Barcelona, the city where the deceptive criminal strategies and behaviors were deployed that gave rise to the commission of those, the place from where the patrimonial displacements took place, city where the decisions directed to this end were made and where the criminal effects were produced as a result of the aforementioned conducts, as well as the purpose of the entire criminal network “.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court recalls that in order to establish the objective jurisdiction of the National Court it is necessary that the crime be committed “in its entirety” abroad, since the crimes that have been partly committed in Spain and partly in the foreigners must be prosecuted by the organ of the Spanish territory in which, although not totally, they were perpetrated. For his argument, he recalls the example of drug trafficking crimes that begin abroad (transoceanic flights or ships with narcotics arriving at the coast of the peninsula, being from that moment prosecutable in Spain by virtue of the principle of universal justice), and that they end up in Spanish territory (detention when landing or disembarking or, still, in territorial sea). In those cases, the court recalls, “there is never any question of attributing jurisdiction to the National High Court even though the crime was also committed abroad.”
In addition, the Supreme Court points out that one of the contracts on which this accusation is based was made in Barcelona (known as a loan contract), and as for the simulated contracts, “not only is some annex made in Barcelona, rather, some of them have a double location (Barcelona / Sao Paulo, Santos / Barcelona), which is provided for in the contracts themselves “. Therefore, actions based in Barcelona are identified that can be classified as typical: “if the typicality consists in the granting of a simulated contract, it can be said that some of those contracts were awarded in two distant places; one of them, territory Spanish “.
On the bench will sit the player, his relatives and directors of Bara and Santos, in addition to both clubs as legal persons and the forward’s family business, N&N Consultora Esportiva y Empresarial. They consider that all allegedly carried out maneuvers to inflate the cost of the transfer to 83 million euros.
According to the criteria of
Source site www.elmundo.es