In the more than 70 pages of pre-trial detention of appeal to the Court of Appeal of Lisbon, the defense of Jose Socrates leaves a notice relating to an important source of evidence against the former prime minister. Lawyers João Araújo and Pedro Delille accuse the attorney holder of the process, Rosario Teixeira, to be waiting for bank information originating abroad they consider to be “no proof” and therefore can not be used in court against Socrates.
“Proof, do not know which or what, that research can look at approaches to banks and foreign authorities can join as prohibited proof, given the available to Articles 5, 5 Regime number Tax Settlement (the Special RERT) I, II and III, “say the lawyers in the appeal.
At issue is sending by the bank information Swiss authorities that may unravel the circuit money that allowed Socrates maintain a life of luxury, as was reported by various media.
By reconstructing the path of money, researchers have run into several million euros, according to then reported weekly Sun , were deposited in Swiss bank UBS’s accounts for multiple accounts offshore . These would be controlled by childhood friend of former Prime Minister Carlos Santos Silva, businessman also in custody in this case.
But for lawyers, underlining ignore the facts for which Socrates is indicted, these data is not admissible in court. The tax amnesty implies that the transferor to Portugal money deposited abroad under this scheme may not be criminal proceedings against for that.
“Within the limits of this system, the tax adjustment declaration can not be, in any way, used as evidence or relevant element for the purposes of any tax proceedings, criminal or administrative offense, should the players banks maintain the confidentiality of the information provided, “states the laws establishing regimes.
RERT was created by the first government of Socrates in 2005 and repeated in 2010, the second government of Socrates, and in 2012, already with Passos Coelho.
In December last year, for example, was shelved the investigation that ran for eight years on the alleged corruption in the sale of two submarines business by a German consortium to the Portuguese State.
In a statement, the Central Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution admitted have been possible to “establish the receipt of certain amounts [gloves],” but stressed that “without recourse to the particulars in the RERT no evidence such as to infer who the beneficiaries” even because “RERT prevents the possibility of prosecution under tax fraud, through the use of content RERT. “
Socrates is indicted by a qualified tax fraud, corruption and money laundering, a crime that needs another at source to be proved. The Public Ministry (MP) have already ruled on the appeal, insisting on probation. The appeal will rise however for the Lisbon where back on the table of MP and, finally, by judges.
Habeas corpus rejected
However, the MP, who investigates this process events that have occurred between 2000 and 2005, believes Carlos Santos Silva would be a front rail, moving Socrates of money will have been derived from illegal activities, including the payment of gloves.
According to what has been reported, Silva Santos joined the RERT in 2009 to spend a few million USB for BES. Instead of the usual 50% tax, the law allowed to pay only 5%, that is, instead of paying the state 10 million euros, will have paid a million. Back in 2005, have also received another tranche Portugal from an account offshore Carlos Silva Santos.
In these types of cases, the legalization of this cost money to their small holders penalty, much lower than it would have to pay in taxes if they had declared out of the scheme.
In the long appeal, the defense of Socrates also underlines be concerned the constitutional right to defense, as he says, was not informed of the circumstances of time, place and mode or from the evidence that indicate the alleged facts. So even the barely feature into question facts, criticizing over the conduct of the proceedings, claiming that under various nullity and unconstitutionality.
At the same time, João Araújo and Pedro Delille criticize the actions of the investigating judge, Charles Alexander, who ordered the arrest of Socrates for more than two months. Lawyers consider that the judge violated the principle of reservation of the judge and the duty to explain its decision. For the defense, Carlos Alexandre was not impartial and supported the thesis of the prosecution without making a personal judgment about the process.
No comments:
Post a Comment