Former treasurer of the PP Luis Bárcenas and his wife, Rosalía Iglesias , spared no luxury for years. Despite being all his professional career linked to a political party and even held public office as the senator, Bárcenas maintained a high standard of living . Thus, he was able to buy a villa in Baqueira (Lleida) for about one million euros.
According to the judgment in the Gürtel case for which he was sentenced to 33 years in prison, along with his wife to 14 years, the former treasurer of the PP put his hand in the ‘box b’ of the party that he managed to pay part of that house.
The National Court considers it proven that Bárcenas stole from the box 149,000 euros that he first invested in the Digital Freedom media in 2004. What he did was take the money and give it to his wife so that she would buy the shares.
After a while, he sold those shares and, having recovered the money and introduced it into the legal economic circuit, he invested it in the purchase of the villa. The explanation given by Bárcenas about this operation, according to the court, “does not deserve any credit, because what he is saying is that, being in the idea of acquiring shares of Digital Freedom, this was done on behalf of his wife with those 150,000 euros from the sale of a painting. “
The court rejects that Rosalía Iglesias was “a simple object”
On the other hand, in order to endow that amount with a legal appearance, Iglesias “mendaciously stated in his personal income tax return for the year 2005, the 149,600 euros deducted from ‘caja b’, as income generated in a period equal to or less than year derived from the transfer of assets other than real estate or shares “.
All this operation was done with the help of his wife, a cooperator of Bárcenas to hide irregularly obtained amounts from the Treasury. However, the treasurer and herself have tried to convince the court that she knew nothing.
“The court rejects the argument put forward by Rosalia’s defense that she lacked the knowledge to carry out the actions that are imputed to her. That justification would relegate it to little more than a single object, and this should not be allowed by the court “.