“Contumma has serious implications and is an exception regime that has no place, makes no sense, was not created, and is certainly not intended for a trial most of which took place more than 18 years ago; with charges lasting 10 years.” .” ; which was the subject of refusal and was deemed unfair and oppressive by the British courts for more than eight and seven years,” reads the appeal filed on September 29, to which Lusa had access.
The same appeal adds that the trial in question “was declared time-barred for two other defendants more than four years ago” and the sole defendant has João Vale e Azevedo, who has “worked and lived in London for more than four years, at a public address.” , known to everyone and especially known in the file (also through the suspect’s own information)”who” has been a lawyer in the case for more than three years; and is unable to travel to court in Portugal due to duly proven illness”.
In view of this, the defense takes the position that “the contested decision does not respect the principles of necessity and proportionality” and requests its revocation.
Emphasizing that there is “abundant evidence” in the file that João Vale e Azevedo resides in London at an address known to the court, where he has already received notices from Portuguese courts, the defense points out that on May 25, 2022, a notice was published which indicated how the suspect’s residence has an address in Colares, Sintra, “where, as evidenced by the file (and it is public), the accused has not resided since June 14, 2018 (more than four years) and to be within the period of 30 days to appear in court on pain of, failing that, being declared offensive”.
On June 30, the appeal adds, an announcement was published giving Vale and Azevedo a 30-day time limit to appear in court under penalty of contagion, and on July 12, the former president of Benfica filed a request for the to request annulment. of the facts prior to the contomacy and to inform the court of the impossibility to appear for medical reasons, as evidenced by the statement submitted.
On September 22, the Lisbon District Court issued the order declaring Vale and Azevedo contumaz.
The defense also declines that all steps to notify Vale and Azevedo as part of this process have been exhausted, stating that “steps still need to be taken to notify the defendant”.
“The defendant has not yet been notified because the Court and the Portuguese authorities were involved in the case, including the MP [Ministério Público]has not provided the clarification requested by the British authorities,” the defense arguesadding that there is “a clear disagreement” between the Court of First Instance, the MP, the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) and the UK authorities, of which Vale e Azevedo is “completely unaware and of which he is now the victim is or ‘collateral damage'”.
The defense also raises formal issues that preclude the notice of default, such as the fact that the 30-day time limit for presentation presupposes that it was not possible to notify the defendant of the order setting the date of the hearing.
“At the moment there is no order in the file to designate the day before the hearing. All previous orders indicated days before the hearing, but were passed without result and the hearings were never held or even started,” the appeal reads. . .
On September 23, Vale e Azevedo’s lawyer had already guaranteed in statements to Lusa that she would appeal the arrest warrant issued by the District Court of the Lisbon District, alleging that the former director had refused to appear in court. to appear.
At issue is a case in which Vale e Azevedo responds for providing false guarantees of three million euros in legal proceedings and for trying to circumvent BCP, including with false guarantees, in order to obtain a credit of 25 million euros.
For more than three years, since March 2019, the court has unsuccessfully tried to notify the former lawyer, who has lived in London, UK since June 2018, for trial.
Vale Azevedo was notified to appear in court on June 30, 2022 and did not appear, pending an arrest warrant.
Source: DN
