news
Iñaki Urdangarin is expected to say that his wife knew nothing of his shady business affairs; however her name appears on too many documents
19.01.12 - 14:01 -
Couple. Cristina and Iñaki, at the wedding of Victoria of Sweden in 2010. AFP
So far the Anti-Corruption Prosecution is adamant: there is still no evidence to warrant calling Cristina de Borbón in for questioning as part of the ‘Caso Babel’. Not as a witness and by no means as a suspect.
That is the official stance. However detectives are finding that the name of the King’s daughter is turning up on more and more documents related to the case in which her husband, Iñaki Urdangarin is accused of embezzlement and money laundering. What’s more the Infanta apparently benefitted financially from the public funds ‘diverted’ by her husband, as these ended up in firms and bank accounts shared by the couple.
For the time being however the prosecutors are going to wait to hear what Urdangarin has to say when he is questioned on February 25th. The future of his wife depends on his version of events and his defence strategy is a closely kept secret. Nevertheless, both the Prosecution Department and the Royal Household assume that the King’s son-in-law will do his best to exonerate his wife from suspicion.
Detectives believe that Urdangarin will resort to the classic court tactic of claiming that he used his wife’s name and that she was totally unaware of his business affairs and did not question him about the excessive growth in the family fortune.
Nevertheless before he gets a chance to declare, the judge will interrogate other suspects and witnesses who may not have so much interest in keeping the Infanta’s name clean. The first will be Urdangarin’s former partner, Diego Torres, who shared executive positions with Cristina at the Nóos institute. Since 2008 Torres has had his differences with the royal couple and could reveal delicate information, when questioned on February 11th.
That same day the court will also hear the version of Miguel Tejeiro, the lawyer at the centre of the fraud, who is Torres’s brother-in-law and has also broken contact with Iñaki and Cristina. He knew the couple’s bank accounts inside out, according to the investigation.
The situation of the Infanta is delicate for a number of reasons. She sat on the board of the Nóos institute, the non-profit organisation that Urdangarin and Torres allegedly used to obtain more than 15 million euros from public and private institutions, at the time of the most serious irregularities (2004 to 2006).
Then there is the real estate firm co-owned by the Infanta and her husband. Just between 2004 and 2005 this firm received 747,889 euros from the Nóos institute for work that was totally unrelated to real estate. As proprietor she would have received direct profits, although there is no evidence that she was aware of this. Since 2009 this firm has been run on behalf of the couple by Mario Sorribas, who is also in charge of ‘De Goes Center for Stakeholder Management’, the firm through which monies obtained were allegedly laundered. A joint bank account with Urdangarin, from which 400,000 euros was transferred to Diego Torres could also involve her in the fraud.
The name of the Infanta’s personal secretary Carlos García Revenga is turning up a little too often for Cristina’s comfort. He was also on the board of the Nóos Institute, what’s more as treasurer, when the biggest deals were completed. Furthermore there are also documents that indicate that Revenga managed some of the Duke of Palma’s shady affairs from the Zarzuela palace itself.
Finally there is the seven million euro mansion that the couple bought in Barcelona in 2004. The origin of the funds used for this purchase is still not clear although detectives believe that at least 600,000 euros came from Nóos via the couple’s firm Aizoon.
Meanwhile the Palma judge in charge of the investigation has indicted another 11 people in the case and is working full throttle to have the investigation complete by June and the trial in court next year. Another 47 people have been called in for questioning as witnesses.
