Jordi Pujol has lost the first battle to try to abort the judicial inquiry into the origin of the fortune his family kept, for 34 years, abroad. The Court of Barcelona has endorsed the decision of the owner of the magistrate court number 31 of the city to open proceedings against the president of the Generalitat, his wife, Marta Ferrusola, and the seven children in the family. And has rejected an appeal by the defense of Pujol, who said he was the victim of a “general cause” without any basis.
The order of the Court of Barcelona based their argument on the starting point of all the case Pujol: the statement July 25, in which the Catalan president admitted that his family Hacienda hidden assets abroad. This capital-about 3.4 million and entered in Andorra, it was learned later-appropriate, according to the statement, a legacy Father, Florenci Pujol, bequeathed to his daughter and seven grandchildren.
The information provided to the public by Pujol on his fortune in Andorra, criticize judges, is “clearly incomplete” because it “does not provide any specific information about its origin, import or operations carried out over almost 35 years,” . The nationalist exmandatario partial confession is, on the contrary, “suggestive enough to warrant the opening of a criminal trial is to determine the origin and development of heritage sometimes referred tant.”
The statement indicated that since Florenci grandfather died, the family had not had the chance to bring out the money, despite the extraordinary regularization adopted by successive governments, both the PSOE and the PP. Pujol nuance, however, that a few days before the July 25 family regularized funds. The order made by the Third Section of the Court of Barcelona necessary “check if the adjustment announced by the appellant committing a crime against Hacienda fully adjusted to the reality of the facts, the only way to rule out clearly and definitively Public. “
” The recognition of the existence of a hidden throughout over 30 years heritage “are the judges,” can be considered a sufficiently revealing fact to consider that there is evidence (of course, a provisional basis) if committed at least one crime against the Treasury.
No comments:
Post a Comment