Iñaki, Cristina and the NOOS Corruption Investigation Part 2 (2015 - 2018)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
:previous:

Yes NotHRH, I am referring to the news article that DOM left for us to read. And I Thank you for your input. Over time and in reading news articles and seeing her actions as shown me that it seems that Infanta Cristina has not taken any responsibility for what has occurred in her life. IMO it seems like that Queen Letizia has been the one that the blame falls on for everything that takes place. King Philip and Queen Letizia are trying to protect the throne and the history of Spain and I think they are doing a wonderful job at this time. It is a hard struggle for them and they don't need nor should they have the drama of Infanta Cristina taking away from their duties.:)
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
Yes but my point remains: the sting has been removed from the bee (or the wasp, what you prefer). Of course she remains a King's daughter and King's sister, but with the new King the Infantas all have become almost invisible.
Click to expand...

The Infantas are no longer members of the Royal House, so it is understandable that they no longer have public engagements on behalf of the King. It is regrettable though that Infanta Elena was also sidelined together with her now infamous sister, as she could still be quite valuable to the Royal House. As I understand, Queen Sofia still keeps a public agenda, but, otherwise, King Felipe and Queen Letizia have to do most of the work alone as King Juan Carlos is also becoming increasingly invisible and their daughters are still very young.
 
I'm sure we'll be reading more delightful stories on the Borbons as the new year unfolds.
 
NotHRH said:
All we can go by are press reports, specifically the one cited in Duke of Marmalade's post above. I am assuming this is SnowBirds' source for the comments she made in her post. Do you not believe the information in the article or do you know something we all do not, such as you heard the Infanta herself say the info the article is bogus and untrue? And if you did indeed hear HRH say the article is a lie, can you use her exact words, quoting when and where needed?
Click to expand...

The only source should be the official communications from the Tribunal of Justice or the Office of the Attorney-General (Fiscalía General del Estado in Spanish). Not sensational media hypes.

Despite being a co-owner of the company Aizoon and being a member of the board of Nóos Institute (both organizatons involved in this case), Infanta Doña Cristina finally would not be prosecuted. The Tribunal of Justice in the case, as well the Prosecutor of the Balearic Isles, as well the Office of the Attorney-General agreed and maintain that, as is clear from the testimony of various accused people and showed by documents seized, that there is no indication that Infanta Doña Cristina participated in the activities or the management of the companies involved or was involved in the core decisionmaking. For these same reasons, the Attorney General's Office rejected a private complaint filed against the Infanta by a lawyer.

A certain and vigorously active Judge of Instruction kept going on against the Infanta and finally she was heard in the procedure. The "blaming everything on someone else than herself" as some posters claim seem not funded by what has been recorded from the hearings:

Judge: Do you have legal knowledge?
The Infanta: No.
Judge: Do you have tax knowledge?
The Infanta: No.
Judge: Do you know about the PADRE program?
The Infanta: I heard about it, but no.
Judge: Do you have economic expertise?
The Infanta: No, very basic, but no.

The rest of the hearing went in that pattern. She blamed no one at all. Not Mr Diego Torres, not anyone else of the nine accused. She blamed no one. Things seem to get an own life on this forum which are not very corresponding to reality.

:ermm:
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
The only source should be the official communications from the Tribunal of Justice or the Office of the Attorney-General (Fiscalía General del Estado in Spanish). Not sensational media hypes.

Despite being a co-owner of the company Aizoon and being a member of the board of Nóos Institute (both organizatons involved in this case), Infanta Doña Cristina finally would not be prosecuted. The Tribunal of Justice in the case, as well the Prosecutor of the Balearic Isles, as well the Office of the Attorney-General agreed and maintain that, as is clear from the testimony of various accused people and showed by documents seized, that there is no indication that Infanta Doña Cristina participated in the activities or the management of the companies involved or was involved in the core decisionmaking. For these same reasons, the Attorney General's Office rejected a private complaint filed against the Infanta by a lawyer.

A certain and vigorously active Judge of Instruction kept going on against the Infanta and finally she was heard in the procedure. The "blaming everything on someone else than herself" as some posters claim seem not funded by what has been recorded from the hearings:

Judge: Do you have legal knowledge?
The Infanta: No.
Judge: Do you have tax knowledge?
The Infanta: No.
Judge: Do you know about the PADRE program?
The Infanta: I heard about it, but no.
Judge: Do you have economic expertise?
The Infanta: No, very basic, but no.

The rest of the hearing went in that pattern. She blamed no one at all. Not Mr Diego Torres, not anyone else of the nine accused. She blamed no one. Things seem to get an own life on this forum which are not very corresponding to reality.

:ermm:
Click to expand...

Understood - there is only one official journal and the rest of the stories are in the tabloids, headlined for public consumption. I cannot understand how Cristina, a person with no legal knowledge, no tax knowledge, and no economic expertise could allow herself to become a member of the board of the NOOS Institute or any other business-type board. If it is clear from her testimony and the testimony of others implicated that she had no core role in any of the decision-making, then she and only she, through her own naivete and ignorance, can blame only herself for all the fingers pointing her way by the Spanish public and the decisions, by her brother, to make her an outcast, publicly anyway, of the Spanish royal family. The fact that she now lives in Switzerland, where money that needs to be hidden can be, does nothing but make her "appear" to be guilty of all that she is accused. Yes, the entire story has taken a life on its own, courtesy of HRH Infanta Cristina of Spain herself.
 
The poor ignorant wife is the defense strategy of her lawyers ... but nobody believes it.

Infanta Cristina has a degree in Political Science, she has a Master in International Relations... for 20 years she has worked in a cultural and social foundation that belongs to one of the largest banks in Spain... and has access to the best consultants.

If she did not know what was happening, it is because she did not want to know. She preferred to think that her husband was a brilliant entrepreneur who made a lot of money and not ask questions.

But possibly Cristina, in the end, will did not suffer any consequences, because the Treasury has not denounced her and Botin doctrine will be applied. Something that is a scandal for the Spanish people, because in recent months the Treasury has been very hard not only with normal citizens, but also with many famous people such as athletes, artists and singers.
 
The Infanta Doña Cristina had "profit" because her husband -who for sure is involved- earned money in these constructions. Money which befitted his royal spouse and his children. But what Iñaki did, on a relatively little scale, was what everybody else of the ruling elite was doing. Even the Catalan President and front fighter for a separation from "the corrupt Government in Madrid", Mr Artur Mas, is up to his neck in corruption scandals himself....

The "creative use" of public money was nothing new and all Spaniards knew it. All of them. And most of these Spaniards themselves have had profit from it too... So it was tolerated in society as something which was inevitable. The people became extremely angry when draconic measure after draconic measure came over them in the deep crisis which had hit Spain. What was a better and more ideal object for all frustrations than an Infanta de España, even when it turns out that ultimately it all seems quite minimal from her side.

Now Spain is recovering again from the economic crisis and all these automatisms ("You do something for me, I do something for you") are still there. They have always been there. Simply look at the football (soccer) clubs. Up to their neck in the debts but purchasing players for unbelievable amounts. All supporters knowing that -otherwise it is impossible- financial malversations are daily business in those clubs but all pretend not to see the truth. Even absolute and undisputed stars as Lionel Messi and Neymar are tarnished with tax fraud or tax evasions. The Spaniard Rodrigo Rato, a former head of IMF who is up to his neck in fraud. The fall of the giants Bankia and Caja Madrid allowing senior executives and advisers to use “phantom” corporate credit cards to go on a €30 million private spending spree....

Then Infanta Doña Cristina comes handy as lightning rod, as a modern Santa María Magdalena for the Spanish elite to take the attention away. What where her crimes? She bought a dress for her daughter and payed it with a Noos Credit Card? Pfffftttt....
 
Last edited:
Duc_et_Pair said:
Judge: Do you have legal knowledge?
The Infanta: No.
Judge: Do you have tax knowledge?
The Infanta: No.
Judge: Do you know about the PADRE program?
The Infanta: I heard about it, but no.
Judge: Do you have economic expertise?
The Infanta: No, very basic, but no.
Click to expand...
Nobody can believe this statement from a well educated woman like Cristina.

‘Botín doctrine’ means that a ‘popular accusation’ (when the plaintiff bringing the action to court is not the direct victim of the alleged crime but is defending rights on behalf of the people) is insufficient to sustain a case when there is no public prosecution.
 
Well I am a developed person but in all honesty I can say that I have no legal knowledge (that is why we hire lawyers), that I have no tax knowledge (that is why we hire accountants), that I may have heard something about certain programs but don't ask me for details and that I have no economic expertise either (that is why we hire financial consultants).

Either I am weird, like the Infanta. Or we simply share a lot of general knowledge and a little of specific knowledge, like zillions of others.
 
Last edited:
Duc_et_Pair said:
The only source should be the official communications from the Tribunal of Justice or the Office of the Attorney-General (Fiscalía General del Estado in Spanish). Not sensational media hypes.

Despite being a co-owner of the company Aizoon and being a member of the board of Nóos Institute (both organizatons involved in this case), Infanta Doña Cristina finally would not be prosecuted. The Tribunal of Justice in the case, as well the Prosecutor of the Balearic Isles, as well the Office of the Attorney-General agreed and maintain that, as is clear from the testimony of various accused people and showed by documents seized, that there is no indication that Infanta Doña Cristina participated in the activities or the management of the companies involved or was involved in the core decisionmaking. For these same reasons, the Attorney General's Office rejected a private complaint filed against the Infanta by a lawyer.

A certain and vigorously active Judge of Instruction kept going on against the Infanta and finally she was heard in the procedure. The "blaming everything on someone else than herself" as some posters claim seem not funded by what has been recorded from the hearings:

Judge: Do you have legal knowledge?
The Infanta: No.
Judge: Do you have tax knowledge?
The Infanta: No.
Judge: Do you know about the PADRE program?
The Infanta: I heard about it, but no.
Judge: Do you have economic expertise?
The Infanta: No, very basic, but no.

The rest of the hearing went in that pattern. She blamed no one at all. Not Mr Diego Torres, not anyone else of the nine accused. She blamed no one. Things seem to get an own life on this forum which are not very corresponding to reality.

:ermm:
Click to expand...

If these were the type questions put to the Infanta then the questioning was very inept at best. There were no answers other than "no" she could answer truthfully, unless she is a lawyer, tax expert or economist.
 
The fact that she sat on the board of Noos makes her statement totally incredible.
How can you sit on a board and not know basic things about what they are doing?
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
Well I am a developed person but in all honesty I can say that I have no legal knowledge (that is why we hire lawyers), that I have no tax knowledge (that is why we hire accountants), that I may have heard something about certain programs but don't ask me for details and that I have no economic expertise either (that is why we hire financial consultants).

Either I am weird, like the Infanta. Or we simply share a lot of general knowledge and a little of specific knowledge, like zillions of others.
Click to expand...

So why was she on the board to begin with, what skills/qualities did she contribute? According to her, none. She would have been wise to hire lawyers, accountants, and financial consultants and let these professionals take care of matters of the board. Anyway, fact remains she was unqualified to be on the board and was anyway - basically she was the front person behind which suspicious activity was on-going. She says she did not know, but why else put a person with no qualifications on the NOOS board? No she really can't be that stupid...she really can't be...
 
Just perhaps she felt comfortable being on the board knowing that she had complete trust in her husband and between them, they were guaranteed two votes for whatever the board would be deciding on.

When it comes to financial dealings and just about anything involving money, I totally trust my husband's judgment to advise me on things because he's actually good at what he does and can squeeze a quarter out of a nickel sometimes when we need it. We're not on any kind of board but we're jointly involved in all thing financial.

I'm going to refrain from voicing on whether Christina is guilty or innocent and leave that up to the courts.
 
NotHRH said:
So why was she on the board to begin with, what skills/qualities did she contribute? According to her, none. She would have been wise to hire lawyers, accountants, and financial consultants and let these professionals take care of matters of the board. Anyway, fact remains she was unqualified to be on the board and was anyway - basically she was the front person behind which suspicious activity was on-going. She says she did not know, but why else put a person with no qualifications on the NOOS board? No she really can't be that stupid...she really can't be...
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I am not familiar with the responsibilities of corporate boards in Spain but in the US the board is the responsible party who in turn hires the CEO to carry out its directions. But the ultimate responsibility lies with the board. If the Infanta did not understand what was going on then it is just ...tough luck for her.
 
grevinnan said:
I agree with you. I am not familiar with the responsibilities of corporate boards in Spain but in the US the board is the responsible party who in turn hires the CEO to carry out its directions. But the ultimate responsibility lies with the board. If the Infanta did not understand what was going on then it is just ...tough luck for her.
Click to expand...

In the US it's not uncommon for people to become board members based on who they are and who they know, instead of what they know. The link below is a quick but interesting read.. soft landings indeed! I doubt things are that different in Spain.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06...-find-soft-landings-on-corporate-boards/?_r=0

That doesn't mean that if things go south the prestige board members bear no responsibility for the fallout, as Christina is now finding out. But Christina's claim that she knew very little about the day to day running of the board and relied on Inaki to make the actual decisions doesn't seem unbelievable in light of articles like the above and the many others that can be found with a single internet search.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
The Infanta Doña Cristina had "profit" because her husband -who for sure is involved- earned money in these constructions. Money which befitted his royal spouse and his children. But what Iñaki did, on a relatively little scale, was what everybody else of the ruling elite was doing. Even the Catalan President and front fighter for a separation from "the corrupt Government in Madrid", Mr Artur Mas, is up to his neck in corruption scandals himself....

The "creative use" of public money was nothing new and all Spaniards knew it. All of them. And most of these Spaniards themselves have had profit from it too... So it was tolerated in society as something which was inevitable. The people became extremely angry when draconic measure after draconic measure came over them in the deep crisis which had hit Spain. What was a better and more ideal object for all frustrations than an Infanta de España, even when it turns out that ultimately it all seems quite minimal from her side.

Now Spain is recovering again from the economic crisis and all these automatisms ("You do something for me, I do something for you") are still there. They have always been there. Simply look at the football (soccer) clubs. Up to their neck in the debts but purchasing players for unbelievable amounts. All supporters knowing that -otherwise it is impossible- financial malversations are daily business in those clubs but all pretend not to see the truth. Even absolute and undisputed stars as Lionel Messi and Neymar are tarnished with tax fraud or tax evasions. The Spaniard Rodrigo Rato, a former head of IMF who is up to his neck in fraud. The fall of the giants Bankia and Caja Madrid allowing senior executives and advisers to use “phantom” corporate credit cards to go on a €30 million private spending spree....

Then Infanta Doña Cristina comes handy as lightning rod, as a modern Santa María Magdalena for the Spanish elite to take the attention away. What where her crimes? She bought a dress for her daughter and payed it with a Noos Credit Card? Pfffftttt....
Click to expand...

All of what you stated above is correct BUT

given the 'above everything' image of the SRF, especially King Juan Carlos, all alarm bells should have gone off with the thought of a royal getting his fingers on public money.

And it seems that at the beginning, JC wanted Inaki elsewhere, got him a job with Laureus, but 200.000 Euros per year salary wasnt good enough. And because Inaki wanted to make more money on his own and JC did not see a way to keep him from doing so, all of this started.

I am sure the mess about to happen was well known within the family but they were either to weak to stop it or though it would be ok because of the common acceptance of misuse of public money.
 
camelot23ca said:
In the US it's not uncommon for people to become board members based on who they are and who they know, instead of what they know. The link below is a quick but interesting read.. soft landings indeed! I doubt things are that different in Spain.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06...-find-soft-landings-on-corporate-boards/?_r=0

That doesn't mean that if things go south the prestige board members bear no responsibility for the fallout, as Christina is now finding out. But Christina's claim that she knew very little about the day to day running of the board and relied on Inaki to make the actual decisions doesn't seem unbelievable in light of articles like the above and the many others that can be found with a single internet search.
Click to expand...

The people discussed in the article are well educated and have held professional and political positions that would be appropriate backgrounds for board memberships. The article does not discuss suitability but rather the opportunities that are available for retiring politicians.
 
Interior room of the headquarters of the Balearic School of Public Administration Palma where the proceedings will take place on January 11th

PPE

PPE Agency
 
I wonder if she sports the goofy ear-to-ear grin throughout the questioning inside...like we saw her while entering and leaving the court last time..
It works much better than the oh-poor-me-so-ignorant to convince the jury of her "naivette"..
 
In will be on holidays in Lanzarote next week, but I think they will not conclude .
 
Note that the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the State (Fiscalía-General del Estado), the Public Prosecutor of the Baleares ánd the Tribunal in Mallorca have seen no grounds for prosecution. The Infanta is "only" accused of tax avoiding, now eight and nine years ago, by a private prosecution request filed by the action group "Clean Hands".

The Tribunal decided that the Infanta should be heared indeed. That is it. The action group of course will demand the highest possible terms. However the demand for eight years of imprisonment for tax evasion in 2007 and 2008 is ridiculous. Plus that the Public Prosecutors of both the State as well the Baleares already saw not enough evidence and circumstances to build a succesful prosecution of the Infanta which could make any chance in a lawsuit. So all by all, most likely it will not be too spectacular, the outcome.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

An Ard Ri
  • Sticky
Infanta Cristina, News and Events 1: Jan, 2024 -
Replies
2
Views
1K
Somebody
Somebody
Marengo
Iñaki Urdangarín, News and Events 1: Jan. 2024 -
Replies
2
Views
1K
Toledo
Toledo
Marengo
Juan Valentín, Pablo, Miguel & Irene Urdangarín, News and Events 3: Jan. 2024 -
Replies
18
Views
2K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
  • Sticky
Birthday and anniversary wishes for the Royal Family of the Spain 2024
Replies
12
Views
978
Biri
B
Somebody
The Princess of Orange, News and Events Part 2 (Jan 2024 - present)
2
Replies
51
Views
9K
Somebody
Somebody

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom