The Attorney General’s Office has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against Judge Pablo Llarena’s decision not to grant amnesty for the crime of embezzlement. Carles Puigdemont, Tony Comin and Luis Puig Therefore, arrest warrants were not issued against them.
The plaintiffs disagree with the judge’s thesis. Who is considered “the purpose of enrichment”?This is the formula that Larena found to support the accusation. They consider that there was no personal or inherited enrichment for the accused, and therefore the crime falls under the amnesty law.
The plaintiffs also refute Larina’s argument and believe that with the referendum, The financial interests of the European Union were not violated.For all this, the Public Prosecution demands that the arrest warrants be lifted.
The Office of the Prosecutor maintains this standard.
Before Larina made her decision public, the prosecutor’s office had already informed her that, in her opinion, it was necessary to pardon the pro-independence leaders of all crimes.
However, this public service position was not without controversy. The four plaintiffs in the trial in the case refused to grant amnesty for the embezzlement case, despite the Attorney General’s ruling, Alvaro Garcia Ortiz.
This caused Open war on the public prosecution Which was resolved by a fairly close vote by the Board of Prosecutors who supported Garcia Ortiz’s position.
On the same day that the amnesty law came into effect, the judge gave them five days to decide on its implementation, and in the meantime, indeed, And keep the arrest warrants. Period ended June 18.
Like the Public Prosecution, the Public Prosecution and the Defence Committee, they supported pardoning the accused and lifting the precautionary measures.
On the other hand, Larina was Negative report from Voxwho acts as a private prosecutor and argues for personal enrichment, so the crime of embezzlement cannot be forgotten criminally.
Judge Larena’s Arguments
Finally, Larina concluded that embezzlement could not be justified because 1-O There was personal enrichment and the financial interests of the European Union were affected.Specifically, the two exceptions stipulated in the amnesty law for not requiring its application.
The judge noted in his decision that Puigdemont, Puig and Comin had carried out Independence plan They signed an agreement to bear certain bills from their departments. Larina stressed that this behavior in the management’s heritage was “deeply tied to personal gain”
The judge stressed that “clear financial savings” were sufficient for there to be a personal benefit and there was no need for “a material and stable increase in the genetic assets.”
Regarding its impact on the EU’s financial interests, Jaryna argued that the “forbidden” referendum affected the EU’s “territorial dimension”, noting that this had its effect. Direct impact on revenues pledged by Spain to the EU budgetEspecially “related to the collection of value added tax and gross national income”.
Instead, the three pro-independence leaders remained. Pardon for the crime of disobedience.
Decision requiring Puigdemont’s return
environment Carles Puigdemont He confirms that the former president is committed to the decision to return, but with the Supreme Court’s refusal to pardon the embezzlement case. He risks getting arrested and going to jail..
In addition, Llarena can issue another one. European arrest warrant and extradition to Spain De Puigdemont at the request of one of the parties. Now the former president He is no longer immune. Because he is not a member of the European Parliament yet 9J.
Both Comín and Puig have expressed regret for the delay in returning, but are confident that the Constitutional Court or the European Court of Justice will overturn the Supreme Court’s decision. For the time being, neither expects an immediate return to Catalonia.
“Prone to fits of apathy. Introvert. Award-winning internet evangelist. Extreme beer expert.”
