A director and majority shareholder of a company focused on art related to the alcohol trade faced questions at a hearing in Alicante. He denied that certain works were credited to him and explained that the business had to shut down in 2008 due to the financial crisis. He asserted that some paintings were used to settle supplier payments. Regarding the remaining contracts, he said they were kept within his own company. He also mentioned that a girl child and a receipt processing were involved, and claimed that many items were damaged by a flood of waste water on the ship where they were stored. Additionally, he noted that some works had been bought back from suppliers by his daughter’s firm.
The trial resumes on Wednesday. The Tenth Division of the Alicante Court is considering a request from the prosecution that the businessman be imprisoned. The proposed sentence is four and a half years for embezzlement and unfair corporate governance, while his daughter faces two years for accepting works, accused of placing illegal pieces for sale while fully aware of their illicit status.
Several former associates of the accused, including a nephew, are pursuing private prosecutions as well. They maintain their grievances against the company executive who invited them to leave the firm in October 2008 and who has since defended their claims.
Prosecutor’s accusation
The indictment states that the events occurred between November 2008 and December 2008, when the accused ordered the transfer of illustrated works to the warehouse of his daughter’s company in Alcoy, done without the knowledge or authorization of the other partners in the company.
According to the prosecution, the accused presented annual accounts for 2007 and 2008 with a reported value of more than 680,000 euros for the works. The accounts allegedly contained fictitious details intended to mislead other partners and to create the appearance of the person’s stake in the bank. The defendant contends that this valuation was not genuine and that it was included to portray a personal interest that did not exist.
The defendant explained that the five-partner company had reached a dead end in 2008 due to the crisis. Banks withdrew credit, forcing the closure at the end of that year, despite a solid customer base. Three former partners said they were dismissed by the defendant, while the manager asserted that a meeting in October 2008 led to their departure. They left because of ongoing disagreements with the management style.
Loans
The defendant said he had faced three bank loans and that he sold his home to provide liquidity for the art business and eventually to settle those debts. He added that he contacted creditors with outstanding balances and offered to deliver the paintings in exchange for payment, which he subsequently arranged.
The daughter, described as a painter, was noted as having established another similar company later referenced as civil liability in the case. A number of former partners also launched another firm in the same sector.
A fourth partner, never charged privately, was named by the defendant in 2008 with a claim of a large sum of money. The person’s fate remains unclear, and he testified that he did not know what had happened to the paintings in question.
The daughter, denying the accusation of receipt, stated that her father left paintings in a warehouse belonging to their company. A former assistant testified that thousands of paintings disappeared, while another witness claimed that some works would be worth a substantial portion of Spain’s art market. However, there was no comprehensive inventory of the store at the time the company ceased operations.