Hard setback for Barça’s defense strategy in the Negreira case. The judge has rejected that FC Barcelona can be a private prosecution and this means that it will continue to be investigated both for the crimes of unfair administration and sports corruption, the latter crime that could lead to the payment of a fine or intervention if convicted club court. FC Barcelona had requested to hold a double condition in the process. Defend yourself against the crime of sports corruption and attack, as an accusation, for the crime of unfair administration, considering that the former presidents of the club could have paid Negreira an overprice for his advisory services, or failing that, for non-existent jobs.
However, the judge rejects this thesis. She considers it contradictory that Barça wants to appear as injured. He recalls that President Joan Laporta, “in a public appearance stated that the advisory services were actually provided, were documented in detailed invoices and were paid by bank transfers, recording the payments in the club’s accounts.” From the president’s explanations, the judge points out that “the existence of any patrimonial damage to the club cannot be inferred.” In other words, if Laporta publicly defends that everything was done well, it is contradictory to want to demonstrate in a judicial process that the club’s accounts were harmed by the management of the previous presidents.
The intentions – now already frustrated – of Barça to exercise the private prosecution in the Negreira case cracked at times the joint defense strategy that the club’s defense lawyers had agreed upon together with the former presidents charged in this process, Josep Maria Bartomeu and Sandro Rosell. The club’s claim, if it had been accepted, would have meant that Barça ultimately should have filed charges against Bartomeu and Rosell, either to request fines, imprisonment or acquittal. Given this scenario, the judge asked those investigated and the accusing parties to rule on whether Barça should bring the accusation as the injured party. They all objected. The Professional Soccer League of Javier Tebas opposed it, considering that at this stage of the process it is still “premature” to know if Barça’s assets were harmed by the actions of its former leaders. The prosecution stressed that the former presidents “made decisions on behalf of the club and were authorized to do so, having organizational and control powers.” And for their part, the investigated Rosell, Bartomeu, Albert Solé and Òscar Grau refused, claiming that it has not been proven that there has been “patrimonial damage” to the club.
The Negreira case, once who will prosecute and who will have to defend themselves has been configured, is waiting to receive a report from the Civil Guard that sheds light on where the money that the club paid Negreira went. According to the program El Partidazo of the Cadena Cope, the content of a report from the Benemérita pointed out that the money left Barça and returned to people linked to the entity that laundered it. In this way, the thesis that the payments to Negreira could serve as a platform for the enrichment of people linked to the club gain strength and the accusation of sports corruption would vanish. One of the magistrate’s last decisions was to expand the case for the crime of money laundering and also charge Negreira’s son, Javier Enríquez, who prepared the reports on the arbitrators that he delivered on paper and by hand to the former director, Josep Contreras, who then they were resold to the club with an increase of 30%.
