Ex-Barcelona President tax fraud charge dismissed
The accusations of tax fraud that had been made against Sandro Rosell have been dropped as a direct result of his win in court for the second time in the preceding four years.
In 2019, a charge of fraud and money laundering in the sum of 20 million euros was dismissed against the former President of Barcelona, who was found not guilty of the charges.
It was a case that he had been defending himself against for a number of years, and as a result, he was sentenced to a total of two years in prison between the years 2017 and 2019. This sentence will take place between 2017 and 2019.
ALSO READ: Angel Di Maria has been banned for two games
The prosecution demanded that Rosell serve nine months in jail, pay a fine of 230 thousand euros, and be prevented from receiving grants or other types of public support for a period of three years in the same year that he launched his legal battle against the claims of tax fraud.
The year that Rosell launched his legal battle against the claims of tax fraud was the same year that this request was filed.
At this time, it is believed that Rosell has been cleared of all allegations that Sport had brought out regarding him. It has been decided that Rosell will now receive the sum of €287k plus interest that he paid back to the tax office in 2019, which is the amount that he was accused of cheating on his taxes.
The amount that he was accused of cheating on his taxes can be found in the previous sentence. This conclusion has been reached.
It is essential to keep in mind that being found not guilty and being acquitted are not the same thing; in fact, they are two very different things. It is also important to keep in mind that there is a difference between the two.
In the first scenario, this indicates that the prosecutor was unable to show the defendant’s guilt, and in the second scenario, this constitutes proof that the defendant is innocent. Clearly, the prosecutor failed to show the defendant’s guilt in either scenario.
In both of these cases, the prosecutor was unable to provide evidence that the defendant was guilty.