The Barcelona court has decided that a tribunal should investigate the president of Barcelona, Joan Laporta, for an alleged 100,000 euro scam committed in 2014 through an investment in the company CSSB Limited, based in Hong Kong and directed by the former director of TV3 and former president of Reus Deportiu, Joan Oliver, who is also a defendant. Also involved in the case are Laporta’s current number two at Barça, Rafa Yuste, and the economist Xavier Sala i Martín.
The court corrected the decision of the Court of Education number 21 of Barcelona, which had decided not to admit the complaint to treatment. Now, after having revoked this decision, the investigating judge must agree to carry out the investigations. Laporta had already declared himself under investigation for another complaint in the same case at the investigative court number 6 of Barcelona, where he distanced himself from the failed investment, in that case of 4.7 million euros, and placed the responsibility for the fiasco on Oliver.
How this Tuesday progressed The newspaper, The investor paid 120,000 euros to the company Core Store, CSSB’s main shareholder, and managed to recover only 20,000 euros, despite the investment being a high return. The purpose of the money raised was to move Reus up the division, a goal already achieved, and to set up a football academy in China.
The complaint, according to the decision of the Court of Barcelona, states that “the raising of capital was based on the reputation and prestige of the participants, who presented themselves as guarantors of the project, thus offering an appearance of corporate solvency that did not correspond to reality”. The investor also claims that Reus Deportiu’s “losses and negative economic data” were hidden from her and that the participatory loan she invested in was a “high-risk ordinary loan”.
The Court of Barcelona deems it necessary to open proceedings and ask Laporta, Oliver, Yuste and Sala i Martín whether the “mismanagement” of the money was motivated by external causes or whether “the defendants never had the intention of respecting what was agreed”. According to the three magistrates who signed the resolution “there are indications of the commission of acts with criminal relevance”.
