World
Llarena upheld the arrest warrant against Puigdemont and again denied amnesty for embezzlement
The Supreme Court judge ruled that the amnesty law does not cover the embezzlement offense attributed to the former Catalan president. According to the ruling, the decision could be reviewed later.
The Supreme Court magistrate Pablo Llarena, in charge of the procés case, rejected Carles Puigdemont‘s request to be granted amnesty for the offense of embezzlement, even after the Court of Justice of the European Union held that that law does not violate EU law, according to El País.
The ruling also keeps in force the national arrest warrant against the former president of the Generalitat. In any case, the judge noted that the decision is subject to review, leaving open the possibility of changing it if the Constitutional Court admits the appeals for protection filed by leaders of the procés, according to El País.
According to ABC España, Llarena stated in a 25-page order that the Supreme Court had already ruled out applying amnesty to embezzlement because, in the form under investigation, there was an intent to obtain a personal benefit of a patrimonial nature, a circumstance that the law itself expressly excludes.
Still according to ABC España, the magistrate argued that that benefit does not necessarily mean public money being deposited into the defendant’s personal account, but also avoiding the expenditure needed to obtain what was decided to be acquired. In that line, he noted that the defendants promoted the referendum, used goods and services to carry it out and relied on their government powers so that the cost would be borne by the Generalitat.
ABC España added that Llarena also rejected the defense’s request to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction and transfer the case to the High Court of Justice of Catalonia. The judge indicated that the embezzlement under investigation includes acts of contracting and disposal of funds outside Catalonia, through Generalitat delegations abroad.
That outlet also said that the magistrate dismissed the argument of alleged double jeopardy due to the parallel existence of a case on accounting liability before the Court of Auditors. According to that interpretation, one proceeding seeks the possible repair of the economic damage and the other determines whether there was a crime and whether a penalty applies.
Sources
About this note. Written by El Notero with the assistance of artificial intelligence, based on what was published by the cited outlet. El Notero did not conduct its own reporting on this event.
