Neymar, Rosell and Bartomeu Acquitted: The Supreme Court Confirms the Decision in the Signing Case
The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of former FC Barcelona footballer Neymar, along with former club presidents Sandro Rosell and Josep Maria Bartomeu, in relation to the accusations of corruption between individuals and fraud. The judicial decision ends a process that questioned the signing of the Brazilian player, coming from Santos. The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeals filed against the ruling of the Barcelona Court, which had already determined the absence of a crime in the acquisition of the player. The ruling underlines the “inconsistency of the accusation” when analyzing the proven facts.The Brazilian investment fund DIS, which held economic rights to Neymar, had filed charges and requested prison sentences. In the trial, DIS requested sentences of 2.6 years for Neymar and Bartomeu, and four years for the player’s father and Rosell. DIS had acquired Neymar’s economic rights in 2009. Barcelona, for its part, signed an agreement in 2011 with the player to secure his signing, an agreement that DIS considered fraudulent. Barcelona finally anticipated the signing in 2013, paying a transfer fee for which DIS received a portion. The club paid a considerable amount to Santos and to Neymar’s father’s family company. The Supreme Court argues that, although DIS possessed a portion of the economic rights, it did not have the federative rights, necessary for a player to be able to sign for another team while under contract. The court concludes that there was no crime of corruption or fraud, but rather a sporting decision by the club. The ruling explains that the compensation was justified by the transfer, but not by prior agreements on future rights. The court adds that what was agreed between the parties was real: to establish economic conditions for when the player became free. The Supreme Court emphasizes that a footballer can sign for any club when becoming a free agent and that prior agreements only represent a future option or preference, conditional on the player being a free agent. Federative rights belong to the club with which the player has a contract, and do not, in themselves, constitute indications of corruption. The court affirms that the advancement of the signing was a sporting decision, not fraud, and that no evidence of bribery or corruption was found. The Criminal Court that made the decision was composed of several magistrates.The proven facts have reflected the inconsistency of the accusation and that, in no way, when the contracts are carried out, there was a contemporary intent to defraud by defrauding the economic rights of DIS.
Supreme Court
