ANDhe legal representative of the player igo Lpez has asked the judge of Huesca who is instructing the Oikos case, of Love each other in Spanish professional footballwhich rejects the prosecutor’s request for a new extension of the 6-month instruction and file the case after 4 years of investigations that have already resulted in the dismissal of the case regarding a large part of those investigated, among other footballers and bettors.
In his writing, this lawyer, Juan Pablo Lerena, joins the file request formulated this week by the lawyer of the company that carried out the expansion works of the Alcoraz soccer fieldPryobras, and its manager, Jess Sanagustn.
In his writing, he criticizes the 8-month delay in carrying out the expert evidence requested regarding the existence of false invoices with which the alleged rigging would have been financed.
Pryobras’ lawyer, Ricardo Ors, further alleges that the requested expert evidence is “unnecessary” in light of the statements and the certifications delivered to the court by the director of the expansion works.
The lawyer of igo Lpez, investigated as an alleged mediator in the payment of illegal bonuses to Reus players in 2017 so that they beat Valladolid and that Huesca could access the First Divisionpoints out that the investigations began in November 2018 against a group of bettors in the match that Huesca and Gimnstic de Tarragona played that year, and that since then the cause has been expanding to other facts not related in a prospective and unjustified way.
Regrets, in relation to this point, the “unjustifiable” attempts made to continue expanding the case, such as the alleged tax crime that Huesca was accused of not presenting a tax declaration model to which it was not obligedwhich led to the withdrawal of this specific charge.
This legal representative warns that the Criminal Procedure Law requires justifying the reasons for the extensions of the investigation and specifying why the investigations have not been completed, as well as the relevance of the pending evidence.
In this sense, remember that the expert alleged by the prosecutor refers to three invoices for an approximate value of 40,000 euros and he claims to be unaware of the importance and relationship of this evidence with the open case.
“We will be told that it surely served to generate cash that, out of circuit, used to rig a game, of course without even specifying the moneyneither the party, nor the corrupted people, neither date nor place”, assures Lerena, for whom “like so many other things that have already been told to us, we have swallowed with them and then they were not true”.
In his opinion, “What seems evident is that it is not an investigative procedure, neither necessary nor relevant to the investigation.“, unless it is actually “a prospection or a general cause” against the accused
Discussion about this post