El Caso Negreira continues to dominate the headlines in Spain, as details continue to leak out about the corruption case between Jose Maria Enriquez Negreira and Barcelona.
On Wednesday morning it was revealed by El Confidencial that Enriquez Negreira’s son, Javier Enriquez, had leaked information to Barcelona over the Copa del Rey final in 2017. Enriquez told Barcelona that it would Carlos Clos Gomez in charge of the tie, which Barcelona went on to win 3-1. Clos Gomez was also one of the referees slammed by Real Madrid TV last week.
📱 El hijo de Enríquez Negreira filtró al Barça el árbitro de la final de Copa 2017, según @elconfidencial.
Le adelantó a un exdirectivo del club que el órgano arbitral del que formaba parte su padre iba a elegir a Clos Gómez.
📌 En esa final el Barcelona ganó al Alavés (3-1). pic.twitter.com/SwLObvciiZ
— Relevo (@relevo) March 15, 2023
In the afternoon, the case was accepted into the Spanish courts as a case of corruption, which is now being led by the Anti-Corruption department of the public prosecution.
On Tuesday it was also revealed that Dasnil 95 may have used up to seven companies in order to receive money from Barcelona.
'Caso Negreira': admitidas la denuncia de Fiscalía y la querella de Estrada.
📌 Presuntos delitos de corrupción en el ámbito deportivo, administración desleal y falsedad en documento mercantil.
📌La Guardia Civil, encargada de la investigación.
📌 LaLiga, acusación particular. pic.twitter.com/SKTa6Hcr7k
— Relevo (@relevo) March 15, 2023
While there is plenty of noise surrounding the matter, it is the silence of Joan Laporta and Barcelona on the matter that echoes the most. The Blaugrana maintain their innocence, but increasingly it looks as if many have made up their mind on the matter already.
“On Tuesday it was also revealed that Dasnil 95 may have used up to seven companies in order to receive money from Barcelona.”
To all people who ask about the legitimacy of claims. And no, “may” doesnt pertain to whether they may or not have paid, but they may have used up to SEVEN companies, payment did happen.
“of Joan Laporta and Barcelona on the matter that echoes the most. ”
He is a lawyer, he knows that everything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law. If he goes on and denies while court present evidence of these receipts along with Negreiras testimony he will perjure himself.
His silence screams guilt.
You are not sure about that.
Lol. Apparently you know better than me at what Im sure about, maybe Ill consult you next time I cant make up my mind to tell me how I feel.
If you really understand law then you will know you just goofed. Laporte was not the president of barca in the time being investigated. He cannot pejure himself. As a lawyer he knows the court of public opinion doesn’t count. He will prepare his case and defend barca in court. Only a fool will come to public and announce the defence he has to offer in court.
“However, payments resumed from the 2005/06 season, while Laporta was in his first spell as Barcelona President.”
Taken from another article “Caso Negreira: Leaks reveal three year gap…”. Ill keep this short and sweet, since there is nothing more amusing when a person pretending to be something he isnt gets up on his high horses and lecture others, just to fall down and ridicule himself even more.
Of course he cannot perjure himself outside the court, he needs to sit down on the crossexamination chair and be confronted with these statements, if he lies he is of to jail. Maybe you cannot read (amongst other shortcomings), I thought I was pretty clear when I wrote when “court presents evidence”.
If he goes on and lies now, its something in law business known as flushing your credibility down the toilet. If hed deny it and those fresh leaks got published its game over for his case.
Stick to simpler things “Deb”. You are getting verbally vioIated on a daily basis. That must hurt more than being our doormat, good thing we got different pseudonyms, huh?
To non-spectrum readers;
With latest article and leak documents, he body of evidence unfolded to from year 2001, seems like they have been paying for him for two decades over several presidencies.
As these leaks are unfolding and magnitude of corruption is enlarged, so will the case. If anoyone thinks a prosecutor wont include questions about every year (even 2005-2010 when laporta was in charge) theyre deluding themselves.
C’mon James remove that word “fool” from your comment. This is a matter of opinion /perception.
Guy doesnt seem to realize that newly obtained evidence can extend the scope of a lawsuit or be grounds for another one if he lies.
“I stole a candy bar and will be indicted for that, good thing I’m off the hook for all those people I kiIIed when investigators dug deeper into my case”.