Willy Toledo attacks Santiago Segura for his sentence with the Treasury, and he replies: “I am not a thief”

The National Court gave a judicial setback to santiago safe worth of 827.183,39 euros, as a resolution to an irregularity in the payment to the Tax Agency, during 2010-2011. The plaintiff, from what is read in the opinion, would have benefited from a double tax benefit related to a loss in the liquidation concept for the Corporation Tax of those years. The actor is going to appeal this final sentence, but for the moment the reactions of colleagues in the profession are happening. The last ones, those of Willy Toledo.

Twitter has been the platform chosen by the controversial actor to raise his voice and publish his scathing criticism: “He has everything and he has plenty of everything, but it is not enough and he wants more. Greed,” he wrote in a comment that was made quickly viral and that was found almost immediately with the also public response of the convicted person, Segura:

He has everything and he has plenty of everything but it is not enough and he wants more.
Greed. pic.twitter.com/DBhADrsqKa

— Guillermo Toledo (@guillermoTM1959) June 26, 2023

“My admiration for this gentleman as an actor is infinite, as a person not so much. I would show you a WhatsApp message from him thanking me for denouncing the labor veto he suffered on television… to now say, from a headline that he has read, that I have years robbing Spain”. Anyway…”, the director of Torrente snapped at him also via Twitter.

He has everything and he has plenty of everything but it is not enough and he wants more.
Greed. pic.twitter.com/DBhADrsqKa

— Guillermo Toledo (@guillermoTM1959) June 26, 2023

Rifirafe and Twitter

The inflamed bickering did not end there, since Toledo decided to reply to him again to make it clear that yes, he may be “a regular person who is very bad, but not a thief”, to which Santiago replied: “Me neither I am a thief. I have not stolen from anyone, and I do not even “ow” anything, that money was provided in 2016, when an inspector decided that the advisers had not applied a rule correctly. As they thought so, they litigated with the Treasury, and the courts decide