William Cruz, once celebrated as Spain’s Best Sommelier in 2014, faced a prison sentence of two years in a case that has drawn broad attention in culinary circles. The accusations centered on abuse involving wine bottles linked to a high-end dining venue, Mugaritz, where he rose from room manager to sommelier during his years in Errenteria (Gipuzkoa) from 2012 to 2019.
Beyond the custodial term, the Gipuzkoa Court ordered Cruz to pay 22,487 euros in compensation to the restaurant run by chef Andoni Luis Aduriz, with interest accruing on the amount. Additionally, the ruling required the restaurant to shoulder the costs of the legal proceedings, including the private prosecution sought by the two-Michelin-starred Mugaritz’s ownership entity.
During January’s hearing, Mugaritz had pressed for a four-and-a-half-year sentence for Cruz and a total of 61,370 euros in restitution related to the sale of various bottles to both the restaurant and other entities associated with the sommelier, alleging that the bottles had been kept for personal use. Prosecutors, meanwhile, requested two years and three months of imprisonment and 31,854 euros in compensation.
Cruz admitted to selling bottles to third parties but claimed they belonged to him and were known and authorized by the restaurant. He argued that he maintained his own storage space in the local warehouse and sometimes bought bottles directly from the organization, describing this as part of employee benefits. He admitted moving more than 200 bottles to the restaurant and handling the payments in cash through the cashier.
The court, however, concluded that Cruz was not authorized to sell the restaurant’s bottled wines for private gain. It found that he sold items in several batches, with the proceeds directed into a private bank account, and asserted exclusive ownership rights over those bottles.
The decision did not prove that every bottle in each lot belonged to Mugaritz, but it did establish ownership for the 22,487-euro group through purchase invoices. The judgment noted that this evidence provided a rational basis to believe that the same bottles Cruz later sold were indeed part of the restaurant’s stock, with the wine types and vintages often reflecting the restaurant’s selection from its own inventory.
The judgment also stated that Cruz did not document or otherwise prove that the bottles he sold were his own property. He simply contended that the restaurant bought the items from him, paid for them, or received them as gifts due to his role as sommelier. The court found this explanation insufficient to establish ownership in a private capacity for the bottles in question.
The second argument—that the sales were fully known, accepted, and approved by the restaurant—was deemed implausible given the high value of most items and the lack of supporting witness testimony, including other sommeliers employed at the restaurant at the time of the transactions.
The verdict characterized the claim that the bottles served as compensation in kind for lectures, courses, and talks as a weak justification and noted that Cruz appeared to maintain his own cellar niche within the restaurant. This created the possibility that some bottles sold without invoices did not belong to him either, a scenario deemed unreasonable or objectionable by the court.
The ruling is not final; it allows for appeal before the Basque Country’s Supreme Court of Justice. This possibility of further review leaves room for additional argument and evidence in a case that has drawn scrutiny from the gastronomy community and legal observers alike.
Court decision. The parties and the public await the next steps as the legal process continues to unfold in Basque judicial channels.