Caso Negreira

A

ajnotkeith

Well-known member
There are some new headlines circulating about the case today so thought I would make a thread to restate my conclusions which were on the previous forum, and interpret the recent movements in the case.

www.elnacional.cat

Hisenda descarta que els pagaments del Barça a Negreira fossin per comprar àrbitres: "No en consta cap prova"

“S'han requerit tots els moviments del compte bancari i no consta cap pagament a cap àrbitre', assegura el nou informe
www.elnacional.cat www.elnacional.cat

New parts of the Hacienda (tax agency)'s investigation into Negreira were released today. The conclusions have been incorrectly reported by various FCB aggregators (and also by Madrid fans).

But it is not really new information.

The Hacienda concludes :

- There's nothing to suggest money went from Negreira to other referees. This hypothesis was already ruled out years ago, as the accounts of various referees were requisitioned and statements were taken to rule out the possibility that Negreira had distributed bribes to referees.

- There's nothing to suggest Negreira was able to influence behind the scenes proceedings (in the CTA or referee selections, for example). This is, again, not new information, or at least, not a new assessment. It had been reported long ago that many of his colleagues said that his role was symbolic and the real power was centralised in the CTA president at the time.

- FC Barcelona have not provided any proof that the payments correspond to legitimate economic services. They didn't cooperate and gave vague responses when asked what the services were. As such, the report concludes that the payments don't correspond to any known economic activity and are likely masking illegal activity.

- There is no proof these payments were able to actually influence the results.

Again, the conclusion, as I stated here years ago on the old forum, is likely that Negreira had been misleading FCB about his ability to enact influence. That is, he didn't really have any (some former referees described him as a boaster and liar, stating he'd brag about influence he doesn't have) but sold himself to FCB as somebody who could represent their interests in the CTA.

That is, the payments had no real impact, but we have authorised them with the intention that they did.

In this case, the crimes are conferred by intention, that is, the corruption succeeding is not necessary if it can be proven that we made an attempt to bribe with the intention of altering results or referee designations etc. In this way, the payments themselves could be illegal as they represent consummation of a plan to defraud/bribe.
 
It is not a bribe if Negreira is the culprit and the scheemer. You have to prove some things. Who contacted who for example. Also, even if the money didn't get to refs, you still need to prove intention, that the money were meant for that.
 
Too easy to bribe if you want to. Key is to have middle-men. Several in chain. No direct payments to persons involved.

No way of proving. Madrid been doing it for decades and Perez barks because he sees in others what he does himself.
 
ajnotkeith said:
In this case, the crimes are conferred by intention, that is, the corruption succeeding is not necessary if it can be proven that we made an attempt to bribe with the intention of altering results or referee designations etc. In this way, the payments themselves could be illegal as they represent consummation of a plan to defraud/bribe.
Click to expand...
Even if that were true, it's impossible to prove without Negreira or the Barca officials starting the deal with him back in the days to come out and confirm it. And even then it could be he-said-she-said kinda situation.

In the end, it's as Laporta claimed. He admitted the payments, but said all was legal. They can't prove otherwise. This is a win for Laporta.

It obviously doesn't look good on Barca and they should have known better to go this way without political backing like Perez has, but this should be a bullet proof case for Laporta. I think they know it too and simply drag it out to do as much public harm as possible at least. The problem is, it doesn't only look bad on Barca, but on spanish football in general, so it should be in their interest as well.

The club should press the case to finally close. They didn't present any new evidence for some time, they can't prove bribes, there are limitation periods and who pays for the case anyways, the taxpayer?

There should be an angle to press from for the club. Now with Mourinho returning, expect this topic in every post-match press conference, that Madrid doesn't win.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile Real Madrid are getting free influence in the CTA through one of their delegate's wife.
 
Loki said:
Even if that were true, it's impossible to prove without Negreira or the Barca officials starting the deal with him back in the days to come out and confirm it. And even then it could be he-said-she-said kinda situation.

In the end, it's as Laporta claimed. He admitted the payments, but said all was legal. They can't prove otherwise. This is a win for Laporta.

It obviously doesn't look good on Barca and they should have known better to go this way without political backing like Perez has, but this should be a bullet proof case for Laporta. I think they know it too and simply drag it out to do as much public harm as possible at least. The problem is, it doesn't only look bad on Barca, but on spanish football in general, so it should be in their interest as well.

The club should press the case to finally close. They didn't present any new evidence for some time, they can't prove bribes, there are limitation periods and who pays for the case anyways, the taxpayer?

There should be an angle to press from for the club. Now with Mourinho returning, expect this topic in every post-match press conference, that Madrid doesn't win.
Click to expand...
Well, from Negreira's side, he did say that it was for influence.

He said the payments were for FCB to ensure neutrality in the CTA. Which obviously will be taken as potential illegality. He also stated that the main service he provided was informing FCB what happened in the CTA meetings and information on why certain decisions had been made. I think this will be a grey area in terms of how it will be taken legally, because they need to determine what kind of privilege the CTA holds and if special access to it would constitute sports corruption. It could be so, if he had interfered in the referee designations, the promotions of referees etc, but he didn't admit to doing this.

The main issue for FCB is that the club has presented no evidence affirming that any kind of legitimate services were provided. This is why the case was referred to the police in the first place, FCB had attempted to hide the payments which drew the Hacienda's attention to potential money laundering or embezzlement.

After some preliminary investigations and documents requested from FCB it was concluded that the payments don't correspond to any known economic activity and that FCB had tried to hide them from authorities. So on top of potential charges for sports corruption, there are charges for disloyal administration and fraud-related offences. Of course, the embezzlement of more than 8.4 million euros of club money requires explanation from its administrators which they cannot provide. Laporta, too, if he cannot explain why he authorised those payments, or give the name of who did, might also have to resign, regardless of how good he is as president, because it is a serious issue.

Negreira also stated that Barcelona decided to unilaterally terminate the agreement when he was removed as vice president of the CTA. This correlation is what prompted further interest in a criminal case. Negreira said, after this, he sent the burofax threatening FCB, but he didn't receive a reply.

There are no independent witnesses who can testify to verbal refereeing advice being provided by Negreira and the managers asked said they had never received any of it. Negreira specified that his point of contact was Rosell or Bartomeu, which would be strange if he was providing technical advice. It doesn't make sense for the president to directly collect cheap refereeing reports which actually would be used by the technical staff.

We are Barcelona fans here, but I am saying it as I see it, that I think Barto and Rosell were paying this guy because they thought he had influence in the CTA. I confirm that it's very unlikely it had an impact on results, and as the investigations specify, no bribes or instructions were given directly to referees, as far as we know. But the colleagues of Negreira say that he often boasted about his influence and how he could control referees, and I have no doubt he would have told that to FCB too as he sold his services to them under-the-table.
 
serghei said:
It is not a bribe if Negreira is the culprit and the scheemer. You have to prove some things. Who contacted who for example. Also, even if the money didn't get to refs, you still need to prove intention, that the money were meant for that.
Click to expand...
The problem is that Negreira's doctors are stating he has Alzheimers and that he isn't fit for trial or to give testimony. This is the main reason for the delay in uncovering the full details of the case.

There are many unanswered questions which could be dealt with simply if they could officially question him, but at this point, his testimony is not legally approved and he may not be allowed to give it. In which case, as the meetings were only done between Negreira and Barto/Rosell, there is no witness to what was discussed.

Even if he was allowed to testify, if it's true he has Alzheimers, he might not be able to give a full recollection himself.

The club will 100% face some kind of charges for the situation, but not necessarily sporting corruption. Because Barcelona is publicly owned the existence of millions in masked payments is already a crime regardless of the intention, so the ones who authorised it will be liable for fraud (it can also include Laporta).

About sports corruption, I don't know, it happened a long time ago, there are no invoices or documents, and it was done word of mouth by a guy who might not be able to testify anymore. So the likelihood we will find out exactly what was said is low, as anyone from FCB who knows will never admit it, and Negreira wouldn't testify because of that.

The payments themselves would have to be taken as criminal, and it's unclear yet if they can be. FCB were lucky in the sense that Negreira was not ruled to be a public official, as if he had, the crime of bribery would have criminalised the payments themselves.
 
ajnotkeith said:
Well, from Negreira's side, he did say that it was for influence.
Click to expand...
When did he say that? Because the guy has medically proven dementia far before the case announced and his statements will never be considered in a legal case.

His son denied that, and even said that there is no banking trace of his dad receiving the reported money (suggesting it is embezzlement case).
 
Khaled_a_d said:
When did he say that? Because the guy has medically proven dementia far before the case announced and his statements will never be considered in a legal case.

His son denied that, and even said that there is no banking trace of his dad receiving the reported money (suggesting it is embezzlement case).
Click to expand...
What do you mean that there is no trace? The money went to his companies, and he used to withdraw it at the bank.

It is in his first interview with the Guardia Civil, but him being competent for trial is a different matter, it is whether his statements could be read as evidence.
 
ajnotkeith said:
What do you mean that there is no trace? The money went to his companies, and he used to withdraw it at the bank.

It is in his first interview with the Guardia Civil, but him being competent for trial is a different matter, it is whether his statements could be read as evidence.
Click to expand...

Which interview with Guardia Civil? How could he have one when the man's brain is scrambled.
 
ajnotkeith said:
What do you mean that there is no trace? The money went to his companies, and he used to withdraw it at the bank.

It is in his first interview with the Guardia Civil, but him being competent for trial is a different matter, it is whether his statements could be read as evidence.
Click to expand...

His son denied that, mainly during the time the payments ballooned (which the entire case is about).

Negriera Sr never testified, and always cited dementia. Judge initially accept he has early dementia but can testify, now he is diagnosed with advanced dementia and it is likely they will win that case. It will be easy for any lawyer to put doubts about anything said.
 
Khaled_a_d said:
His son denied that, mainly during the time the payments ballooned (which the entire case is about).

Negriera Sr never testified, and always cited dementia. Judge initially accept he has early dementia but can testify, now he is diagnosed with advanced dementia and it is likely they will win that case. It will be easy for any lawyer to put doubts about anything said.
Click to expand...
His son can deny it, but it is a fact the payments went to his company's accounts (DASNIL 95), you can see it in the reports of the Hacienda and Guardia Civil. I can't put the file here because it's too big but here is a link : https://www.cope.es/deportes/futbol...s-hacienda-del-caso-negreira-20230322_2619174

And it is his secretary who said that she used to cash the checks for him at the bank, the Hacienda report confirms around 500,000 was withdrawn in cash. The rest stayed in his accounts or linked accounts to him.

en.as.com

Barça-gate: “All Negreira did was spend and spend. He lived like a king”

El País has spoken to two people who cashed checks for José María Enríquez Negreria, the man at the centre of the Barça-gate scandal.
en.as.com en.as.com
 
ajnotkeith said:
What do you mean that there is no trace? The money went to his companies, and he used to withdraw it at the bank.

It is in his first interview with the Guardia Civil, but him being competent for trial is a different matter, it is whether his statements could be read as evidence.
Click to expand...

How can you know the money weren't paid because Negreira blackmailed the club? Pay up or I tell everyone you bribed refs?

We know we paid large amounts of money to the guy, and that there was no actual service being done according to evidence to justify the money, no?

Blackmail and hush money to keep the guy quiet and try to avoid him going to the press and bring the club into this scandal is most likely explanation for the money being paid to him all this time.
 
serghei said:
How can you know the money weren't paid because Negreira blackmailed the club? Pay up or I tell everyone you bribed refs?

We know we paid large amounts of money to the guy, and that there was no actual service being done according to evidence to justify the money, no?

Blackmail and hush money to keep the guy quiet and try to avoid him going to the press and bring the club into this scandal is most likely explanation for the money being paid to him all this time.
Click to expand...

Why would they stop paying him?

What was he threatening to reveal that could bribe them?
 
serghei said:
These are all questions the ones doing the investigations have to answer.

We can speculate in whatever which way.
Click to expand...

If someone was bribing Barca it would mean they had something to hide and were up to no good.

Also it most likely doesnt end as soon as he leaves office as the power to bribe is still there for whatever the original reason was.

Seemingly he tried to bribe Barca one stopped paying him and didnt work.
 
JamDav1982 said:
If someone was bribing Barca it would mean they had something to hide and were up to no good.
Click to expand...

Bribing is not the right word. I refer to blackmail. There is a possibility that Barcelona paid Negreira because we didn't want him to go to the press and leak this thing.

And not really. With blackmail you can invent things also, on the premise that best and most credible lies have a seed of truth in them. The payments in themselves are wrong to begin with btw. So Barcelona for sure had something to hide and fecked up.
 
There would need to be a reason he could blackmail Barca.. which would be admission of guilt if willing to pay millions to keep him quiet.

But logically it makes no sense as power to expose club remains after he leaves office but they stopped paying him.

Also we know he tried to get them to keep paying up with threats and they ignored it.

There is no way the club paid millions out to an 'invented' threat and it wouldnt go away when he leaves office as said.

Makes zero sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top