William Cruz (Spain’s Best Sommelier 2014) He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. abuse of wine bottles high end restaurant Mugaritz He came to the positions of room manager and sommelier from Errenteria (Gipuzkoa), where he worked between 2012-2019.
In addition to this prison sentence, the decision of the Gipuzkoa Court to which EFE has access, orCruz compels restaurant run by chef Andoni Luis Aduriz to pay 22,487 euros in compensationincreased with corresponding interest.
Likewise, it obliges the company to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of private prosecution brought by the company that owns the two-Michelin-starred Mugaritz.
At the hearing on these events last January, Mugaritz demanded a four-and-a-half-year prison sentence for Cruz, as well as a total of 61,370 euros for the sale of different bottles to the two companies and other companies the sommelier would receive. He kept it “for himself”. The prosecution demanded two years and three months in prison and 31,854 euros in compensation..
The defendant made the following confession at the hearing: sold bottles to “third parties”however, he argued that they belonged to him and that “everything is known and consented” to the ownership of the restaurant.
He also argued that he had “his own niche” in the local warehouse and “even bought” some from the organization itself, because “this is one of the benefits employees have.” take “over 200 bottles” to the restaurant paying “cash” to the cashier.
But now the court ruling is of the opinion that the sommelier “is not authorized to sell the bottled wines of the restaurant for its own benefit”, yet “sells in different lots” and the amounts are credited to a bank account. “exclusive property”.
However, the decision does not count as proof that all bottles in the lots belong to Mugaritz, only one group, the bottles valued at 22,487 euros, which the restaurant obtained. prove ownership with “invoices of purchase”.
“Explains the text of the judgment – we think this constitutes a sufficient principle of proof to rationally understand that these are the same bottles that the defendant subsequently sold”, all of which also “depends on wine, vintage and – in many cases – made by the defendant with its acquisition by the Mugaritz company.” relative closeness between sales”.
The decision also comes from the sommelier’s “He did not document or otherwise prove that the wine bottles he sold were his own”He simply stated that “the restaurant bought it from him, paid for it or bought it from third parties, or was given to him as a gift due to his sommelier profession”.
The second statement, which, according to the sentence, is “absolutely insufficient” to prove his innocence because he was “orphaned by any endorsement,” also reminds the accused that he has “in no way” proven that he has authority. ownership of the restaurant to sell the bottles “privately”.
The court also rejects the defendant’s argument that the sale of the bottles was “fully known, accepted and approved” by the property; this statement is implausible because of the “high value” of almost all of these items.
The judicial text states:Also, there is no witness that this practice is true.as well as “other sommeliers working in the restaurant” when events occur.
Likewise, the verdict considers the defendant’s claim that the restaurant provided him with some bottles “as payment in kind for lectures, courses and speeches he gave as a prestigious sommelier” as a “minimum accreditation fast”.
But the verdict also reminds us that the defendant has his own “cellar niche in the restaurant,” hence the hypothesis that some of the bottles he sold and for which Mugaritz did not issue an invoice, did not belong to him either. “absurd, unreasonable, or downright objectionable”.
This conviction is not final, so it is possible to appeal to the Basque Country’s Supreme Court of Justice (TSJPV).