this former manager’s defense Osasuna Athletics Club Angel Vizcay asked Supreme Court Acquitted of 8 years and 8 months in prison With the decision of the Navarra Court, he was sentenced to this penalty, considering that his right to effective judicial protection and the presumption of innocence were violated. One of his lawyers’ claims was that “He who does not confiscate anything cannot be punished for embezzlement.”

Attorney for Vizcay and seven of the other nine Osasuna case They went to the Supreme Court this Wednesday to raise their appeal against the Audiencia de Navarra decision. It has been proven that Osasuna Board members agree to prioritize former players. bet For Antonio Amaya and Xabi Torres “changing the results of sports competitions“.

The decision determined Osasuna leaders paid “650 thousand euros in total” to Betis players “Encouraging their win against Real Valladolid on matchday 37 of the 2013/2014 season” and allowing them to “win the match against Osasuna on matchday 38”.

In a public hearing, chaired by Judge Julián Sánchez Melgar, the defenses dismissed the sentence, which amounts to 8 years and 8 months in prison and one year in prison. crimes of embezzlement, forged commercial documents, false accounting and sports corruption.

It should be noted that the Audiencia de Navarra decision, which the Supreme Court reviewed this Wednesday, is the first in Spain to condemn the crime of sports corruption.

They make sure there is no abuse

At the beginning of the trial, Ángel Vizcay’s defense assured his conviction of the Osasuna case. A number of your client’s fundamental rights have been violated, including the right to effective legal protection and the presumption of innocence.

The Navarra Court awarded Vizcay the most severe sentence: 8 years and 8 months in prison: 4 years and 3 months for embezzlement; In an ideal bankruptcy case, 2 years and 9 months for two offenses for falsification of commercial documents; and 5 months for sports corruption

The lawyer argued: The reasoning of the sentence is “not duly justified” and also “arbitrary and faulty in the assessment of the evidence”. In his opinion, “there is no ongoing crime of embezzlement in terms of evidence” included in the decision. At this point, it was emphasized that “one who has not seized anything cannot be convicted of embezzlement”.

Likewise, the lawyer filed a criminal complaint. “There is not enough evidence” Violating the right to the presumption of innocence or evidence that Vizcay participated in the crime of falsifying the document attributed to him.

The defense insisted that the former Osasuna manager should be acquitted because he had a “general manager and a board of directors” “over him”. “Mr Vizcay was a blind instrument to the orders of his superiors,” he said.

He also pointed out that “if all that is done is in Osasuna’s own benefit and no enrichment has been made, Osasuna should not be compensated” because, in his view, neither should he be the current president. Miguel Angel Club, Archanco.

Court ‘provisional’ election

During his turn, the attorney in charge of Archanco’s defense also made a claim. violation of your client’s right to trade with all collaterals.

The ex-president of the club was sentenced to 6 years and 8 months in prison: 3 years and 8 months for embezzlement; In the ideal bankruptcy case, up to 2 years from the crime of falsification of the commercial document; and 1 year in prison for corruption in sports.

His defense led to his trial an “ad hoc” elected court that it was constituted in an “opaque” manner, therefore, according to him, “it lacks the neutrality and independence it should have”.

In addition, the lawyer stated that there was a violation of rights by allowing the football league to be involved in the process as a special prosecution.

“Not legitimized,” he argued, arguing that if his participation in the procedure was admitted, it had to be done under the guise of popular accusation. “He will not be offended or harmed by embezzlement, commercial counterfeiting or sports corruption,” he added.

The defense also insisted that the evidence leading to Archanco’s conviction was “insufficient and improperly justified”.