Barcelona trial The 3rd Criminal Court approved the sentence in September 2022 acquitted the former president FC Barcelona Sandro Rosell After he was tried for allegedly defrauding the Treasury of 230 thousand 296 euros in his 2012 statement.

The decision, reviewed by Europa Press this Tuesday, rejects the objection submitted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the State Prosecutor’s Office against the first sentence.

Contrary to what the charges allege, the court finds that: The first sentence is discussed enough is based on the evidence presented at the hearing.

The court, as the trial judge had previously done, rejects the Prosecutor’s charge against Rosell that he used the sole proprietorship TOC to bill his personal activities, pretended to work through a company, and did not work in his personal capacity to generate more income. advantageous taxation.

Court this refutes the alleged simulation and confirms the first sentenceThis confirmed that TOC had engaged in genuine interference with the professional activity that Rosell billed as essentially consultancy and consultancy.

The magistrates accept the chief judge’s warning that “companies’ applications cannot in any case be considered a simulation case”, confirming that NOC provides real services, invoices them, collects them and includes them in the Corporate Tax return.

The prosecutor asked for 2 years in prison

For this reason, while the prosecution demanded a prison sentence of 2 years and 9 months for Rosell, during the hearing, his lawyer Pau Molins attributed the case to ‘persecution’ as a result of ‘Operation Catalunya’. finally it happened acquitted national audience.

In the sentence now approved, the judge mentions “the regrettable negative consequences that this procedure had on Rosell’s personality, which resulted not only in the deprivation of liberty to which he was personally subjected, but also in his eventual acquittal” after serving 21 months in prison.

However, the judge warns: “This neither gives him an air of immunity in relation to other separate events nor exempts him from being subjected to further procedures; it is not possible to conclude that there was an improper action by the Tax Office. According to the defense, the inspections that initiated the case were made against the elderly after verifying that it has been opened to avoid statute of limitations.