The PP appeals to the Supreme Court its conviction and that of Bárcenas for box B, accusing the National Court of "fraud of law"

The Popular Party has appealed to the Supreme Court the sentence of the National High Court that condemns him as subsidiary civil liability for the tax offense committed by his former treasurer Luis Bárcenas, forcing the political formation to pay 123,669 euros as subsidiary civil liability, an amount that results from the calculation for the corporation tax that Unifica, the firm that reformed the Genoa headquarters, stopped paying in 2007.

According to the appeal of the PP, to which has had access, the crime of participation in tax fraud for which Bárcenas is sentenced would have prescribed on July 25, 2013, "the date on which he had not yet addressed this procedure against him”, which happened, adds the defense of the party, on April 14, 2014. “The date on which the sentence considers the prescription to be interrupted is that of an Order in which it is agreed to receive a statement as accused but that does not contain even an approximate description of the facts for which he was finally convicted, nor even an approximate description of them,” he reasons.

The Popular Party estimates that the National High Court used two different criteria to convict manager Cristóbal Páez and Barcenas and that it goes against the doctrine of the Supreme Court itself. It constitutes, he adds, "a kind of prescription fraud that ignores the important functions carried out by this institution and the constitutional values ​​and principles that inspire it," he says in relation to the Supreme Court.

The National Court, according to the PP, has carried out a "restrictive interpretation of the rules that govern the prescription, understanding that there is a procedure at a time when from a democratic perspective there cannot be one worthy of the name, with minimum guarantees of defense of the imputed”.

In this sense, the PP charges against the judges who sentenced him: "Aren't we really, said with the greatest respect, before a fraud of law, before a fraud of prescription, before a 'it doesn't matter that the legislator has wanted to avoid as an interruptive the mere judicial investigation of the facts, that I will pass this off as a specific direction of a specific procedure towards someone'?”.

The PP: Bárcenas did not participate in the Unifica crime

On the other hand, the PP rebels against the fact that Bárcenas is sentenced for "necessary participation in the crime" of the Unifica prosecutor. According to the lawyer Jesús Santos, who signs the appeal, Bárcenas agreed with Unifica to pay him in B but has no participation in the subsequent act of not paying the Treasury. The lawyer insists on his appeal to unlink the PP from box B that he attributes exclusively to Bárcenas.

“According to the account of the facts, Mr. Bárcenas partially paid for some works in secret, in a previous and irregular act that had its own purposes, as the Judgment itself admits, such as dispensing money in B that he himself managed. The fact that later Unifies does not reflect that income constitutes a fully own, internal and sovereign act, entirely in its sphere of domain. [de la empresa]entirely within its scope of organization”, alleges the PP.

The PP lawyer uses the following simile in his appeal: “If A pays B for a shipment of cocaine and B later launders that money, are we saying that A is a necessary participant in the crime of laundering because his previous irregular, criminal, made possible the subsequent laundering of B, something that he also foresaw or could have foreseen?

Source link