Judge Llarena takes pity on Puigdemont
This Wednesday the judge in charge of trying the former president of the Generalitat Carles Puigdemont, issued a ruling in the sentence once his controversy with the Minister of Finance, contemplating for the first time that the facts investigated are not rebellion, but only conspiracy for the sedition, which implies lighter penalties for the defendant.
The magistrate states that the investigators have exaggerated when appearing before him assuring that Cristóbal Montoro had denied in 'El Mundo', that public money had been spent in the 1-0, which indicates that there could be no misappropriation. It also emphasizes that "the interview itself provides nuances" in relation to the minister indicating "the material possibility that there may be a mechanism of hidden fraud".
The sentence that the defendants realized was: "I do not know with what money those urns of the Chinese people of October 1 were paid, nor the maintenance of Puigdemont, but I know not with public money". However, what Llarena realized was that the minister does not rule out "a crime of falsification of a functionary in contact with a supplier of the cause". In relation to this, the judge explains to "the prudent position of a member of the executive power not to want to publicly attribute a crime to specific people", as for the funds of the Generalitat.
Llarena continues by explaining that the control maintained by the Treasury over the Generalitat "does not necessarily mean that the factual or material reality coincides with the budgetary and accounting documentation with which it is counted", implying irregularities in the process. Therefore, it ratifies the signs of misappropriation, reflecting a detailed report on
In relation to the crime of rebellion, it is maintained that this is the most appropriate legal qualification. Estimates that the positioning of the accused in relation to the confrontations with the Ministry of Economy "initially satisfies the consideration of violent force" and as for the day of the referendum, "this was expressed with the injurious result of numerous agents".
Remember also that it is not up to him to determine the possible crimes, but to limit and analyze the events that occurred in this case as fairly as possible.
