A judge in Gava (Barcelona) has dismissed the appeal of footballer Lionel Messi against its complaint on three counts of tax evasion to understand that the striker could know
the activities of his father, Jorge Horacio Messi, who is his representative and his business takes you.
The judge also rejected the motion that Messi as witnesses to the consultant Alfonso Nebot, who works for companies Messi; Angel Juarez lawyer and director of the Management Area Football FC Barcelona, Raul Sanllehí, to understand that his statements “not relevant”.
Although the prosecutor supported the appeal by Messi to understand that there is no evidence of the commission of any offense by the player and called “free case alleging he”, the State Attorney has objected and the judge understood that is a “subjective opinion” Messi “is at the edge of economic, contractual and management of tax revenue generated,” even if his father who’s managed.
The holder of the magistrate court number 3 Gava maintains charges against Messi, along with his father, three offenses against the Treasury for allegedly defrauding 4.1 million euros in the statements of Income Tax of Individuals for 2007, 2008 and 2009, evading the taxation of income
derived from the transfer of the player’s image rights through a corporate network.
The judge already rejected last July, the claim of the prosecution to drop the case against Messi and keep only against her father because he believes there is “sufficient evidence” to believe that the player “could have known and consented to the creation and maintenance of a fictitious corporate structure, which had the sole purpose of avoiding compliance with tax obligations from income generated by the exploitation of his image rights.
In its order of dismissal of the appeal, the judge relativized claims experts explained to the court that he was the father of Messi who managed all contracts and economic activity, but also unknown if the prosecutor.
The judge welcomes the declaration of an expert who claimed in his statement that Messi in terms of economic activity, “signature that put you, has no time or inclination, is dedicated to football and that’s it,” although he noted that that was a “subjective opinion”.
The judge argues that since it is “a subjective opinion, an impression, an assumption” is not established that Messi “is at the edge of economic, contractual and management of tax revenue generated, but simply that whoever this was done it was his father.
“In the hypothetical case of take it for granted that it is still a guess, this would not prevent Lionel Messi could have known and consented tax fraud,” says the judge.
The judge also remember to charge the player “enough that there are indications that Lionel Messi could you accept the data defraudatoria conduct, including by way of possible fraud, without requiring such evidence or that have been fully accredited or
such knowledge may have covered all accounting or corporate transactions or the precise amount of the fraud. “