In January of this year Josep Santcana was convicted of a crime of concealment of assets by hiding his assets to avoid paying the Bank of Luxembourg a debt of 7.5 million euros. Arantxa Sánchez Vicario, for her part, avoided prison by reaching an agreement with the Prosecutor’s OfficeWeeks later, in February, we learned that the businessman requested that his sentence of three years and three months in prison be annulled. We now know that his appeal has been rejected, so the sentence is confirmed.
The Barcelona Provincial Court notified him of the decision this Friday, September 13as he anticipates VanityThe ruling further emphasizes the businessman’s guilt and remains firm in recognizing that the four-time Roland Garros champion’s self-incrimination was decisive in her conviction. Santacana, however, has another bullet left: appeal to the second chamber of the Supreme Court..
In the appeal that has been dismissed, The Catalan alleged that his right to defense and to a procedure with due guarantees had been violated. due to the agreement between the Prosecutor’s Office and the former tennis player, which attributed all responsibility to Santacana and designated him as responsible for managing her assets. Santacana’s defense considered that “the facts declared proven by the appealed sentence are manifestly contradictory with the arguments made to declare them proven.” The businessman, who has not yet seen his divorce with Arantxa resolved since the process began in 1018, His right to the presumption of innocence was also violated..
In turn, Santacana said that the evidence against him is insufficient. and argued that he should have been given an extenuating circumstance for undue delays given that “the overall duration of the criminal proceedings was almost eight years.”
However, the Barcelona Provincial Court has now dismissed all of his appeal arguments in a 23-page ruling.. The courts consider him to be the mastermind behind an operation intended to avoid paying the debt to the Bank of Luxembourg. The text of the sentence already indicated that he “was the person who managed his wife’s assets” and who “designed and carried out the dispossession operations that led to Arantxa’s inability to pay the debt contracted with the plaintiff.”
LinkedinBeloud