The judge in the mask case, Adolfo Carretero, accepts Luis Medina's offer to incorporate his grandmother's inheritance into the court's requirement for civil liability and will take it into account to withdraw the charge for concealment of assets. The instructor warns, however, that this "will become effective when the amount of his hereditary rights, the Judgment that declares them and the part corresponding to Mr. Medina are officially recorded in the procedure", is recorded in a car dated this May 5, to which elDiario.es has had access.
Judge Carretero considers that when Medina's offer becomes effective, he will understand that "there is no intent to conceal his assets", that is, that he has no desire to hide his assets from the action of justice. Carretero adds that he will use the part of the inheritance that is necessary to complete the required bail but warns that "the embargoes will be maintained in case the aforementioned sentence is revoked", referring to the decision of the Seville court that agrees with Medina in the family dispute over inheritance.
The brief from Medina's defense to the court offering the inheritance assured that the amount of it "far exceeds" the 891,227.07 euros that remain to be paid to the commission agent investigating after the seizure of his yacht and the 247 euros that he kept in an account banking. In this regard, the affirmation of the judge himself becomes relevant in another order of April 29 where he highlighted that the bail imposed on the two investigated, Medina and Alberto Luceño, in terms of civil liability, are joint and several and that one will cover what the other cannot satisfy.
Medina had appealed the accusation for concealment of assets with the argument that the sale of bonds attributed to him was carried out before the case was opened in the Court of Instruction number 47 of Madrid, although after his statement in the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office the April 13, 2021, during the investigation proceedings of the Public Ministry prior to the presentation of his complaint.
The judge reasoned: “The investigated party made his patrimonial dispositions before a process of foreseeable initiation, as it turned out, without it having anything to do with the fact that after the embargoes issued by this Court, he has not made any patrimonial disposition, for which reason His conduct provisionally fits into the aforementioned crime of concealment of assets.”