'They don't want you to know': editorial preview of the new book by Jesús Cintora
The years show us, more and more, that there are groups of political and economic pressure that do not present themselves directly to the elections, but are increasing their power and wealth. There are citizens who must make it to the end of the month with a thousand or so euros in salary, while their electricity bills are multiplied, and there are privatized companies that achieve record profits or sign up former politicians with no experience in the sector, but with a good agenda of contacts. When companies such as electricity companies, oil companies or banks break their maximum profits and citizens feel that they are abusing their patience, the main challenge for a ruler is to defend the general interest. The public powers must put order in an increase in inequalities that does not seem to reach a ceiling.
Among the main obstacles are the links that the most powerful can establish and that can put governments, critical journalists or whoever stands in their way against the ropes. There are ties that range from large strategic companies, to politics, justice or the media that show the true establishment. That is power. It is no longer that among the powerful they can protect themselves. It is that they believe that democracy is them. Untouchable networks. Powers that can pick up a phone and determine what it should be. With a vocation to improve our democracy, the book "They don't want you to know it", by Jesús Cintora, investigates and denounces aspects related to politics, justice, patronage networks, public services or the media that show pockets of privilege , shadow powers or resistance to change.
The case of the emeritus king is a paradigm of national shame in recent years for Spanish democracy. For a long time his adventures related to corruption were known, but he did not talk about it, he hid or passed on tiptoe. Major media did. Also political and economic powers. It was well seen rubbing elbows with the monarch or talking about how folksy he was, not denouncing his bad practices. With this complicity, some sought to obtain income. Others just don't get into trouble. Being an accomplice in this way did not prevent Juan Carlos I from correcting his attitude and responding to justice. He has gone unpunished.
Below, we reproduce an extract related to the case of the emeritus king, his inviolability, the archive of investigations in Spain and the role of the media:
“I was recently debating with an old journalist about the inconvenience of reporting the evil deeds of the king emeritus. He was in favor of silence to a certain extent. For that of protecting the Head of State, the Crown, coexistence among Spaniards, guaranteeing the stability of Spain and I don't know how many other things. My answer was clear and simple: precisely those of you who have most damaged the monarchy and all that you mention are those who for so many years knew those bad habits of the king and looked the other way. The problem is not telling it, the problem has been hiding it for so long. That gives a feeling of open bar, that everything is possible, that there are no witnesses.
The work of journalism is also to testify. It must contribute to an advanced and fully democratic society, which must know, know. The journalist must be, among other things, the one who also exercises control over power through something as simple as telling the people what is happening. It seems simple, but you know that there are always those who turn it into something very complex. Something goes wrong, by the way, when those who keep quiet are rewarded and those who tell are punished. If those who hide reality, choose to sugarcoat it, tiptoe around or look the other way are incentivized, that too is a message being sent to the messenger. That quote, you will receive reward for it. It is well seen. It suits you. Keep it up. You'll be fine. Pat on the shoulder. It is the way… (…).
In Spain, the Prosecutor's Office concluded in March 2022 that the King Emeritus hid more than 85 million euros from the Treasury in different tax havens, but he cannot be prosecuted: due to the prescriptions and inviolability, with the commendable work of governments, prosecutors , Tax Agency, judges and tax havens, such as Switzerland, where the authorities have protected the concealment of funds for decades. Exactly, Juan Carlos I hid 85,596,266 euros, according to this official information. He defrauded the Spanish treasury of at least 56,097,616 euros. Summarizing: more than 85 million hidden and more than 56 million of fraud to the Treasury. The official data shows a series of amounts called “gifts” and several names as intermediaries called “friends”. One could think that they are figureheads and not gifts, but commissions and other derivatives of corruption, but then it would be a bad idea.
With Juan Carlos de Borbón in the United Arab Emirates, it was expected that the investigations would be archived, because he was gradually announcing himself in different leaks to the press. As well as to prepare the ground before public opinion. Finally, the announcement of the shelving came in the middle of the war in Ukraine. The prosecutor concluded the three investigations into the emeritus and it was filed. It was the result of years of news about the king moving money through countries like Switzerland, the transfer of briefcases with bills, the purchase of luxury real estate with his mistress Corinna or the trips and relationships with the billionaire satraps of the Gulf. (…)
With what was published by the State Attorney General's Office, a server consults a Treasury inspector and finds that:
Regarding the Lucum Foundation and the collection of 100 million dollars, the Supreme Court prosecutor's office acknowledges that it has assessed the commission of crimes against the Public Treasury for the concept of Personal Income Tax from 2008 to 2012 and Inheritance and Gift Tax from 2008 and 2010. This supposes the commission of up to seven crimes against the Public Treasury. However, they are considered non-prosecutable, without criminal reproach, due to the prescription of four of them: personal income tax from 2008 to 2011. It would not be prescribed in the case of the 2012 financial year, with personal income tax, because it is such a high amount and, therefore, we would be facing the possible commission of the aggravated type of tax crime. Which means that it would have a longer statute of limitations, of ten years (it would prescribe on July 1, 2023). Here, they apply to Don Juan Carlos I of Spain who is inviolable.
The amounts defrauded with the five crimes for the IRPF concept suppose a total of undeclared and defrauded fee of 2,339,553.02 euros. The two tax crimes of the donation tax would be with an undeclared and defrauded fee of 53,758,063 euros. The total defrauded amounts to 56,097,616 euros. The facts that suppose this fraud are related to the “gift” of 100 million dollars received in 2008 and the interest and yields obtained by that money in these years, which represent very high amounts. In addition, the Prosecutor's Office also collects another "gift", from the Sultan of Bahrain in 2010 with the entry of 1,895,250 euros into the Lucum account.
In addition to these seven crimes, the Prosecutor's Office analyzes others as possible. It argues that the monarch, as an authority or public official, is prohibited from accepting "gifts" of any kind, so his conduct is likely to integrate the criminal type of improper passive bribery, typified in article 422 of the Penal Code. Especially with the amount of the “gift” we are talking about. He notes it on the two "gifts" received, both in 2008 and 2010 from the Gulf countries. That money is delivered for the fact of being an authority and its function. And what it means is that giving that fortune is not done for the sake of it, but "to cause a state of gratitude in the recipient" that could favor him in the future. Therefore, we add another two crimes. He rules out, with the data that there is, that it can be shown that they paid him commissions for the construction of the AVE to Mecca. However, if it is a "gift", he makes it his own, so in any case he should pay taxes for it and for the income obtained.
The Prosecutor's Office also points out the possibility of the commission of the crime of money laundering of article 301 of the Penal Code, recognizing "acts likely to integrate some of the behaviors" of this crime, which in any case would cease in 2012 with the prescription. It accurately points to the fact that laundering was involved in that year, when all the money received in the Lucum accounts was transferred to the Solare de Corinna account. We speak, therefore, of a total of up to nine crimes committed and the door is open to another money laundering. The absence of reproach and criminal prosecution, in addition to the prescription, is based on the fact that in all this criminal action the application of article 56.3 of the Spanish Constitution concurs, which the Prosecutor's Office interprets according to the doctrine of the Supreme Court (...).
The Prosecutor's Office recognizes that he has committed a minimum of nine crimes and that he cannot be prosecuted for not having investigated the prescribed ones within the prescribed period and, fundamentally, for being protected by inviolability. Equally striking is the concept of "gift", which, if true, the King did not integrate into National Heritage, but made it his own and without paying taxes for it.
Did the King Emeritus really receive all those "gifts" from friends, cousins and others and was it altruistic? The monarch appears in many publications as the holder of a vast fortune. Where is that money, he didn't spend anything? It is a fundamental question to know if really, ultimately, we are talking about mechanisms for concealing money, its origin and its owner. It may be that someone decided to pay small regularized amounts, rather than admit that this fortune was completely his and had also been obtained during the years in which the king was inviolable. We are a succession made susceptible to corrupt activities. And, if we look at the hidden fortune hypothesis, it produces significant profits in the form of interest and the like. Just as any Spaniard declares his interests in the bank, one wonders, what also happens with the income and interests that a great fortune like this produces?
The regularization with respect to Zagatka may not be true or complete. Both for what we are presenting as a hypothesis of the outcrop of great fortune, and for a much more concise fact: it is not proven that in this case the IRPF taxation is appropriate and the Donations Tax may be, as we find ourselves before new “ gifts”, as the person known as the “cousin” of the king, the Lord of Orleans, has repeatedly declared.
And, apart from the technical explanations, it is a scandal that a "king emeritus" has been spared all the adventures described. Plus others that we probably do not know.
