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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Infanta Doña Cristina is not facing State prosecution in any way. In Spain (and in most EU countries) a plaintiff bringing an action to Court must be a direct victim of an alleged crime. The case against the Infanta was brought forward by an action group called "Clean Hands" claiming rights "on behalf of the people".

The famous Botín Doctrine was issued by the Supreme Court in December 2007, stating that a trial cannot be opened solely in the instance of popular accusation, but needs to be petitioned by the Public Prosecutor or the private prosecutor as the only legitimately injured parties. This means that the action group "Clean Hands" has to show and proof that individual plaintiffs in their group were directly a victim due to actions or non-actions of the Infanta. Both the Public Prosecutor as well the Examinating Magistrate saw little possibilities to build a case which has any chance in a lawsuit.

In most (if not all) EU-countries it is not possible to prosecute purely for the prosecution (as we can see in the US: "I sue you! See you in Court!"). A case must be brought forward to the Public Prosecution Office and it is their duty to make sure that the right person is prosecuted for the right offence. In doing so, prosecutors must always act in the interests of justice and not only for the purpose of obtaining a conviction. This means that in the EU Public Prosecutors regularly advice the Court that there is no sustainable case for a prosecution and/or conviction. This is a total opposite role as in most of the US-states where the prosecution seems to see it as a "defeat" when there is no conviction.

In the US only the state prosecutor can bring criminal charges. I think your view of our justice system comes from some very sensationalized public trials, and TV shows, which grossly distort our system. Our prosecutors similarly act in the interests of justice, and there are many, many cases they decline to prosecute for a variety of reasons no matter what the victims demand. Prosecutors advise judges here all the time that there's no evidence, or that they decline to prosecute. It's not a contest here either, it's a quest for justice. :flowers:

Somebody directly wronged can bring a civil suit for money damages or other relief, quite separate and apart from criminal charges. This is always a completely different trial, brought by private attorneys (or in rare cases an attorney general for a matter of public interest - Cristina's case might fall into such a category, but the AG has to agree to take it, no group can demand it). In the US as well, the plaintiffs must have standing to sue, generally directly wronged. This group would very likely have no standing in the US as well. (Although some people do have standing to bring certain whistleblower proceedings, racketeering proceedings, etc, which this might fall under in Spain as well - but these are civil suits in the US, no jail time.)

If Cristina were in the US, there would be one prosecutor at a time, perhaps federal charges in federal court, and then perhaps state charges in a state court (I find it confusing to see three prosecutors there) If the prosecutor feels there is insufficient evidence, they simply decline to prosecute, or decline to bring a matter before a grand jury for indictment to begin with. It's after this that civil suits begin.

It sounds to me like the civil and criminal proceedings against Cristina are all wrapped up in one? Is this the case? Are there both state and local prosecutors there? No wonder I'm confused.

Although the more I read about it, the more I'm convinced she's not going to jail. She might be prosecuted, but I don't see jail. She certainly may have to pay restitution.
 
I don't know anything about the judicial system in Spain or whether Infanta Cristina is guilty or not, all I know is I feel so bad for their (4) children. Regardless of the outcome, those children will live with this scandal shadowing them for the rest of their lives. Shame on the parents for believing they could live as they pleased without thinking of the impact on their children.
Regardless of the legal outcome, the damage done to those beautiful children should be enough, IMHO, to render the parents guilty.
 
I don't know anything about the judicial system in Spain or whether Infanta Cristina is guilty or not, all I know is I feel so bad for their (4) children. Regardless of the outcome, those children will live with this scandal shadowing them for the rest of their lives. Shame on the parents for believing they could live as they pleased without thinking of the impact on their children.
Regardless of the legal outcome, the damage done to those beautiful children should be enough, IMHO, to render the parents guilty.

i agree, rebafan. however, as they grow older they will start making their own paths in life and little by little become detached hopefully... but there is no denying that their childhoods are spoilt by having to witness and be in the middle of this chaos.
 
Councillors in Barcelona have voted to strip Spain’s Princess Cristina of the city’s Gold Medal after King Felipe’s sister was put on trial for tax fraud earlier this month.

A meeting of the Left-wing council’s deputy mayor’s office decided to start the administrative process to remove the city’s top award from the princess, informing her that she should not lay claim to the honour or be referred to as “her most excellent lady” with immediate effect.

“No merit exists by which the princess could be deserving of this honour”, said Gerardo Pisarello, deputy mayor of the Left-wing BComú coalition, adding that he would have preferred the royal to have handed the medal back of her own volition once she was accused in the corruption case centred on the Nóos Institute, a company formerly run by her husband Iñaki Urdangarin which was allegedly used to embezzle public funds.

The 50-year-old Princess Cristina lived in Barcelona from 1992 to 2009, working for the charitable foundation of La Caixa bank. She was awarded the city’s Gold Medal in 1997.
Read more: Spain's princess stripped of Barcelona medal over tax fraud trial - Telegraph
 

Mainstream parties Ciutadans and PP advocated postponing the vote and did not take part because of the presumption of innocence.
But municipal groups have pointed out that, despite not having judgment, even King Philip VI removed his sister and her husband the title of Duke of Palma.

During the debate there was some polemic as the spokesman of one of the catalonian parties, CUP, cited an anti-monarchist song of the band Mesclat: "If the king wants his crown, we will give it to him, to come to Barcelona and we'll cut off his neck."
El portavoz de la CUP en Barcelona amenaza al Rey
 
The pettiness coming from the separatists is hard to endure. They have a stick and they look for someone to hit with it. That the Infanta Doña Cristina is possibly not prosecuted and that their own frontman Artur Mas is up to his neck into corruption himself is easily overlooked... Pfff...
 
Infanta Cristina will be judged. Judges refuse to apply the Botin doctrine.

La Infanta Cristina será juzgada por el caso Nóos


That is indeed a surprise and, regardless of Cristina's guilt or lack thereof, a very troublesome move by the Spanish court. A country where a person can be prosecuted for a criminal offense without being first indicted by a State prosecutor is at odds with established practice in Europe. That reinforces my perception that, rather than benefiting from her accident of birth, Cristina is being treated unfairly harshly just because she is a royal, as the courts want to make a statement that "justice is for all".

I think there is a considerable chance that she might be found guilty now.
 
Last edited:
That is indeed a surprise and, regardless of Cristina's guilt or lack thereof, a very troublesome move by the Spanish court. A country where a person can be prosecuted for a criminal offense without being first indicted by a State prosecutor is at odds with established practice in Europe. That reinforces my perception that, rather than benefiting from her accident of birth, Cristina is being treated unfairly harshly just because she is a royal, as the courts want to make a statement that "justice is for all".

I think there is a considerable chance that she might be found guilty now.

Without really knowing the evidence, I am somewhat surprised by this too as I was fairly convinced they would apply the doctrine. (without knowing much about it, again). I suppose this opens the door for a multitude of appeals should she be convicted.

I concur there is now a considerable chance of her conviction, and where I thought she would never face jail time now matter what the outcome, now I am not so sure.

The Spanish royal household on Friday expressed “complete respect for the independence of the judiciary” after learning about a court decision that will mean that Cristina de Borbón must stand trial in connection with the so-called Nóos case.
Spanish royal family_ King’s sister loses last-ditch attempt to avoid taking the stand in Nóos case _ In English _ EL PAÍS

Their hands are tied.



Question: do we have any idea of just how long this mega-trial will last? I am assuming we are talking well over six months, with all the defendants, all their attorneys, all the prosecutors, etc. The legal profession does like to flap their gums. :D
 
The Spanish royal household on Friday expressed “complete respect for the independence of the judiciary” after learning about a court decision that will mean that Cristina de Borbón must stand trial in connection with the so-called Nóos case.
Spanish royal family_ King’s sister loses last-ditch attempt to avoid taking the stand in Nóos case _ In English _ EL PAÍS

No surprise really about that statement from the Royal House. What else could they have said other than that they respect the independence of the judiciary ?
 
Last edited:
All this is very unfortunate and just what King Felipe does not want or need at this time.
 
That is indeed a surprise and, regardless of Cristina's guilt or lack thereof, a very troublesome move by the Spanish court. A country where a person can be prosecuted for a criminal offense without being first indicted by a State prosecutor is at odds with established practice in Europe. That reinforces my perception that, rather than benefiting from her accident of birth, Cristina is being treated unfairly harshly just because she is a royal, as the courts want to make a statement that "justice is for all".

I think there is a considerable chance that she might be found guilty now.

I don't know exactly how spanish justice works, but in France, when prosecutors say there should be not trial, judges are not bound to follow their advice. Judges are (theoretically) independant and do what they think and believe they should do. It happens that prosecutors ask for a trial with no evidence at all and the judges say "no trial, charges are dropped", and vice versa, that prosecutors say (most often when a VIP or a former politician has been indicted) there should not be any trial and judges say there are enough evidences to lead the indicted ones in a court. So what is currently happening in Spain could happen here too, as the final word goes to the judge.

The Botin doctrine seems to me to be a way spanish justice had found to avoid influent or famous people to be led in a court and it is far more fair to me that this doctrine is not applied to the King's daughter and sister.
 
The same thing happens in Spain Sancia.
In this case is not that the judges have decided not to apply the Botin doctrine to make an example of Cristina for being who she is, they've decided that the doctrine is not applicable in her case because the crime exits (Urdangarín is accused of it by the prosecutor and the state attorney) and she's an accessory. They've released a 30 page technical report to explain their reasoning, and it's not the first time a judge or panel of judges has considered that the Botín doctrine is not applicable to a similar case.
 
The same thing happens in Spain Sancia.
In this case is not that the judges have decided not to apply the Botin doctrine to make an example of Cristina for being who she is, they've decided that the doctrine is not applicable in her case because the crime exits (Urdangarín is accused of it by the prosecutor and the state attorney) and she's an accessory. They've released a 30 page technical report to explain their reasoning, and it's not the first time a judge or panel of judges has considered that the Botín doctrine is not applicable to a similar case.

Thanks, Ana! This makes sense.

Well, this will be a very active thread over the coming months.
 
I feel bad for Queen Sofia, above all else at this moment.. It must be really painful for her to see her own child becoming an outcast of the family and a cause for scandal -most likely without the princess having a responsibility as that attributed to her.. As proud as she might feel for Felipe, so worried and in pain she probably feels for Christina..
 
I feel bad for Queen Sofia, above all else at this moment.. It must be really painful for her to see her own child becoming an outcast of the family and a cause for scandal -most likely without the princess having a responsibility as that attributed to her.. As proud as she might feel for Felipe, so worried and in pain she probably feels for Christina..

What makes you convinced of Cristina's innocence?
 
The same thing happens in Spain Sancia.
In this case is not that the judges have decided not to apply the Botin doctrine to make an example of Cristina for being who she is, they've decided that the doctrine is not applicable in her case because the crime exits (Urdangarín is accused of it by the prosecutor and the state attorney) and she's an accessory. They've released a 30 page technical report to explain their reasoning, and it's not the first time a judge or panel of judges has considered that the Botín doctrine is not applicable to a similar case.

Basically the judges found that the doctrine is not applicable as both Hacienda y Agencia Tributaria (Social Security and Tax/IRS departments) admitted that Cristina had committed an offence by omitting revenue from her tax return. Admission of a tax offense invalidates the Botin's doctrine.

The maximum she's looking at is 8 years but this won't happen. NOT because she's an Infanta but because taking into consideration the amount of money defaulted from Social Security (less than 500,000 euros) and Cristina having no previous criminal record, Spanish justice is likely to hand over the standard 2 year sentence not spent in jail.

However......she's already persona non grata in Spain and having a criminal record will make her more of a pariah than she's already. Cristina could have apologised and said sorry. She didn't.

Acts=consequences. She's earned them.
 
Last edited:
For sure she will get a jail sentence. She did not show any remorse for what she did so that can not be taken in consideration by the judges and I would not be surprised if she gets the maximum.

Isabel Pantoja got a jail sentence a few years ago (which she spends in jail actually) and she had no previous criminal record before.
An amount of money defaulted from the state (Social Security) is a heavy crime.
 
Last edited:
Basically the judges found that the doctrine is not applicable as both Hacienda y Agencia Tributaria (Social Security and Tax/IRS departments) admitted that Cristina had committed an offence by omitting revenue from her tax return. Admission of a tax offense invalidates the Botin's doctrine.

The maximum she's looking at is 8 years but this won't happen. NOT because she's an Infanta but because taking into consideration the amount of money defaulted from Social Security (less than 500,000 euros) and Cristina having no previous criminal record, Spanish justice is likely to hand over the standard 2 year sentence not spent in jail.

However......she's already persona non grata in Spain and having a criminal record will make her more of a pariah than she's already. Cristina could have apologised and said sorry. She didn't.

Acts=consequences. She's earned them.

I agree with you that it is most unlikely that Infanta Doña Cristina will have to go into jail. The alleged crime is too small for jail. Then having to say sorry: that also means that you acknowledge wrongdoing and the Infanta (and her legal team) have categorically denied any wrongdoing at all. So saying sorry is contradicting her strategy. And when a suspect of an alleged crime or misdemeaour finds he/she has nothing to blame for, that is also a position someone may hold in a lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
I feel bad for Queen Sofia, above all else at this moment.. It must be really painful for her to see her own child becoming an outcast of the family and a cause for scandal -most likely without the princess having a responsibility as that attributed to her.. As proud as she might feel for Felipe, so worried and in pain she probably feels for Christina..

I too have always felt sorry for Queen Sofia. After years of having her flagrant adulterer husband's self-centered antics to live with now her child is going to court in an awful public trial. This sweet woman is lucky to have a strong faith. She will pull through this with head held high and do exactly what is correct for family and chosen country. I admire her for the strong woman she is and hope that the media and later history treats her kindly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eya
The same thing happens in Spain Sancia.
In this case is not that the judges have decided not to apply the Botin doctrine to make an example of Cristina for being who she is, they've decided that the doctrine is not applicable in her case because the crime exits (Urdangarín is accused of it by the prosecutor and the state attorney) and she's an accessory. They've released a 30 page technical report to explain their reasoning, and it's not the first time a judge or panel of judges has considered that the Botín doctrine is not applicable to a similar case.

Thanks for the explanation.
 
I dont think there is much need to feel sorry for Queen Sophia. As a mother and Queen consort, she must have got wind of this many many years ago.. She is as much responsible as JC for letting this happen (if at all he is). Maybe she thought it will just pass away, as do many other unpleasant things in many other places and families.
But all bad times struck once. And i am sure she is strong enough to endure this.
 
I dont think there is much need to feel sorry for Queen Sophia. As a mother and Queen consort, she must have got wind of this many many years ago.. She is as much responsible as JC for letting this happen (if at all he is). Maybe she thought it will just pass away, as do many other unpleasant things in many other places and families.
But all bad times struck once. And i am sure she is strong enough to endure this.

I'm not sure what Sofia was going to do to stop her adult daughter and son-in-law. She was not the monarch, I doubt she had any power or control over Cristina in any way.

As for whether I need to feel sorry for her, well, I do. I'd feel sorry for any mother who is no doubt worried sick about her daughter and her grandchildren who are going through all this.
 
I have to agree Gracie. To blame a parent, even a monarch/consort, for the bad choices/mistakes their children made is wrong. Cristina is a grown woman, she and her husband knew fully what they were doing and how wrong it was, and made the choices themselves. There is no reason to think that the royal couple knew or encouraged such actions.

I can find great sympathy for Sofia. Her marriage certainly hasn't been an easy one. She has dealt with her husband, and focussed on her kids and her role as queen of Spain. And now she is facing watching her daughter go through a trial and likely watching her grandchildren who she is very close to, going through all of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom