Spanish football

The Prosecutor insists that there was amao of the Levante-Zaragoza and asks for the repeticin of the trial – SPANISH FOOTBALL

by: Adam Smith





Anticorrupcin considers that the judgment is unreasonable in the church “or in the human experience”.

The Prosecutor insists that there was amao of the Levante-Zaragoza and asks for the repeticin of the trial - SPANISH FOOTBALL 1

The players of Levante and Zaragoza, on the bench of the defendants.

  • Sentence.

    Ablooses the 36 players accused of the amao of Levante-Zaragoza

  • Anlysis.

    The judge’s striking reasons not to see love in the Levante-Zaragoza

The Anticorrupcin Prosecutor on Monday the decision, taken by the Juzgado de lo Penal Nmero 7 of Valencia, to acquit the footballers of Real Zaragoza and Levante UD who had been accused of an alleged amao, has been called absence of “logical and joint” explanation of the evidence that he believes were established during the trial.

The players were involved in this accusation because of the match between the two teams on May 21, 2011, at the Ciutat de Valncia stadium, during the last day of LaLiga and in which the Aragonese won by 1-2 and avoided the descent of catechory.

The refore, the Prosecutor is calling for the condemnation of the existence of transgaming.orgs corruption –along with the one who has already been convicted of falsehood — or that, in a subsidiary way, as there has been a “probationary and ilgica desconnection” between indications and judgment, that this judgment be overturned so that gives a new motivation or the holding of a hearing with another magistrate “for the purpose of making an adjusted probative assessment that includes all the documentation provided”.

As is recorded in the appeal, to which Europa Press has accessed, against the judgment of the judge of the Penal Nmero 7 of Valencia who found no evidence that the money out of Zaragoza’s accounts was intended for The Levant players for letting himself be lost in that match and, therefore, to reject that encounter being loved.

Conclusions “inconsistent”

However, for Prosecutor, the concluding that the magistrate obtained in judgment is unreasonable in the “or in human experience” since the evidence accredited and valued, on the whole, “are what allows a conviction to be concluded” for transgaming.orgs corruption. For the Anticorrupcin Prosecutor, the magistrate reaches “inconsistent” financial conclusions with the evidence that it gives for proven and that they are supported by objective data, reports, bank documents and ledgers.

The criminal magistrate acquitted the 42 charges of the crime of transgaming.orgs corruption for which they were prosecuted and convicted two managers of the Aragonese club for falsity in private document: the former owner, Agapito Iglesias, and the former CFO Francisco Javier Porquera. Each of them was imposed a year and three months of prisin.

For the magistrate, both managers fraudulently justified the departure of 1,730,000 euros from Zaragoza’s accounts with the paying special premiums to their players to achieve tenure in First Divisin. The payment of those premiums was not real and was pretended “to hide the exit of money before the imminent creditor contest claim entity.”

Iglesias and Porquera agreed to count “mendazously” these cash provisions “as if it were the payment to the players of Zaragoza of a special premium for staying in First Divisin”, according to the sentence. Both decided that they should then be made “nminas and a collective recipient, signed by the team’s captain, to justify them documentaryly, both externally in front of the Tax Agency, and internally, within the competition, in front of the administrators insolvencies and creditors.”

“Alleged premium credit”

The judge exculpdes a third defendant, the former Zaragoza Counsellor, from this manoeuvre Francisco Jos Checa, because he understands that he did not know that he was actually acting as a director since his appointment.

The prosecutor stresses that, in this case, it has been established that a significant amount of money is withdrawn from Zaragoza “without any justification, using players and under the alleged bonus credit”; that Iglesias and Porquera “misjudgedly” accounted for these provisions as if it were the payment of a special permanence premium.

It has also been shown that the Players of the Levante suffered a “significant decrease” of cash and card provisions after the match, especially for daily expenses, and that the current maa directive “completely dismisses the dismay of the funds for any purpose other than the purchase, love or arrangement of the party.” In addition, it points out that none of the players of Zaragoza has stated that they charged a premium for permanence or specialsima.

According to the criteria

The Trust Project

Find out more