The nightmare is over for Arantxa Sánchez Vicario: in the sentence notified today by the Criminal Court No. 25 of Barcelona, ??she has seen the sword of Damocles that had been hanging over her head since the Banque de Luxembourg (BDL) and the public prosecutor’s office removed. They filed a complaint against her for confiscation of assets. Arantxa will not go to prison. She found out in court, when both accusations reduced the initial request for a sentence of four years in prison to only two in their final conclusions on September 15. Thus, and lacking antecedents, according to our legal system the judge can suspend the defendant’s admission to prison, as her defense expected, and as has been confirmed today.
Her ex-husband, Josep Santacana, who was also prosecuted and sentenced to three years and three months in prison as the mastermind of his wife’s decapitalization operation, has not suffered the same fate: “In accordance with the evidence presented at the trial oral, it is amply proven that JOSEP S. B. was the person who managed the assets of his wife ARÁNZAZU SÁNCHEZ VICARIO since he took control of it in November 2009, and that he devised and carried out the depatrimonialization operations that led to the impossibility to pay the debt owed to the plaintiff,” the ruling states. This means that Santacana does run the risk of going to prison if he is not prevented by the appeal on which his lawyer will begin working right now.
The judge has valued Arantxa’s assumption of responsibility and has believed her version: that she never directly managed her assets: “The accused ARÁNZAZU SÁNCHEZ VICARIO has assumed her responsibility regarding the facts that are the subject of the accusation, recognizing her participation in them. He alleges in justification of his actions that he did not have any knowledge related to the management of assets, and that he has always entrusted it to third parties, first to his parents, and since his marriage, and specifically since in November 2009 he made with control of the assets, to her husband, JOSEP S.B.”
The judge adds that the former tennis player was not aware of the scope and consequences of the massive sale of her properties: “It is absolutely credible that ARÁNZAZU SÁNCHEZ VICARIO had no knowledge of asset management, nor probably any interest, and that she had always transferred the property to third parties. management over her assets. Once she took control of her assets and the management of her father and B. C. M. ceased, it is evident that another person she trusted took charge of said management.”
Arantxa is obliged, however, to jointly and severally satisfy the amount of 6.6 million plus late payment interest dated September 23, 2023. The change in criteria of the accusations actually responded to issues prior to the start of the trial, since they took into account includes the mitigating circumstances of recognition of the facts, collaboration with the investigation and having paid 1.8 million of his debt.
Throughout the week that the process lasted and based on the various testimonies, the prosecution and the Luxembourg bank’s lawyer confirmed that Arantxa did not devise a plan to decapitalize itself in order to evade its duty to the BDL. On the contrary, they concluded that Santacana was the author or necessary collaborator of the crime and maintained the request for an initial sentence, four years in prison, for him as the main person responsible, not the only one, for the seizure of assets.
The sentence is very clear against Santacana: “The accused JOSEP S. B. had knowledge (since he had worked in the real estate sector) and direct interest in that management, in his position as the owner’s husband, and was the person of her utmost confidence. It in no way exempts ARÁNZAZU SÁNCHEZ VICARIO from not taking direct charge of the management, since he evidently had full knowledge of what was being done with his assets and was enjoying it, with full knowledge of the debt he had with the Bank of Luxembourg. , but he did not have the capacity or knowledge to direct the depatrimonialization operations.”
The other four defendants, as front men, have had better luck since the sentences for three of them are one year and three months in prison plus a fine and the accusation was withdrawn for the fourth. The judge has decided to suspend the prison sentence in the case of one of these three defendants.
