SALVADOR SUSTERES: The repeated pattern in the scams of the complaints against Laporta

Joan Laporta left the court talking about the referee in Getafe but the charges for which he was interrogated are of extraordinary gravity. According to Andreu Rauet, Adrià Tellà and Víctor Gómez authors of the documentary ‘The Reus Case’ (2022), the most serious and worked as those who have been published to date, and as also denounced by the complainants, the alleged scams always occurred according to the same pattern: the same captors (Sandra Soler, Fernando de Oliveira, among others) they were looking for victims of similar characteristics. Especially, that they had no knowledge of football or investments, which made them more vulnerable to deception. Both the authors of the documentary and the lawyers of the accusation also consider that Laporta and its partners knew, at the time of offering it, that they could never reach the 6%profitability, because at that time the CF Reus had already incurred impaired.

In addition, the debt for which the club was liquidated coincides approximately with the total of what was collected by the alleged scammers. In other words, if they had dedicated the about eight million who managed to ‘raise’ their investors, the Reus would have been saved. But very little of that money went to the club, in which the operations that were used were zero cost. Neither solveing ​​signings nor the essential reforms needed by the stadium according to the demands of the Second Division, which is why the entity was systematically fined.

The suspicion that those who have studied what happened is that the bulk of money deviated to China. A part, openly admitted by Laporta and its partners, went to the BIT football club, but the feeling is that most of the capital was destined for private businesses in Hong Kong that did not come out as expected, with the added misfortune that was added to The Sports Law changed in that country prohibiting the Chinese investing in sports businesses abroad, so that the swarm of operations designed so that their Ponzi pyramid would not fall fell as they fell as they always happen in this type of tangle. From this Chinese part there are no conclusive evidence but clamorous indications and the explanations that some of the people involved have given in private believing that they talked to people about their most absolute confidence. What there is proof to accuse Laporta and his aggravated scam collaborators is that he looked for ‘Easy to deceive victims’ and that at the time of offering them the conditions of investment he knew perfectly that he could not meet them.

The supposed farm Begiristain (among others) in Manchester, remained in the best of cases, and in the most likely as a fake hook to attract distracted investors.

Nor are there tangible evidence, although testimonial, of people who for fear or shame have not wanted to file a complaint, nor do their name appear in the newspapers. The reason is obvious: they invested, as they explain, in money B, so that any claim would also commit them to be very difficult, if not impossible, to specify. In this sense, without evidence to demonstrate it but with knowledge of the cause, the positions of Joel González (Taekwondo Gold Medal at the 2012 London Games) as director of the Player and Toni Cruz Attention Office (one of the creators of Gestmusic), are interpreted as a gradual return.

Although some of the penalties for this type of crime carry years in jail, it is unlikely that such an extreme will be applied to the president of Barcelona. Especially the Chinese part is dense and difficult, although not impossible to demonstrate, or at least accredit. In the same way, it is highly unlikely, given the meridian clarity of the cases, which LapTa is free from a conviction – and its corresponding economic fine – for fraud. And no, it will not be the referee’s fault.