Benfica’s lawyers ask for filing, or at least the suspension of the so-called “Blue Bag” process, which would serve to pay “favors” to third parties, namely football referees, in what could mean a possible relegation of the club from Luz, in case proven in court.
In an exhibition sent to the Lisbon Criminal Investigation and Action Department (DIAP), to which the DN had access, the Reds’ lawyers rely on the final report of the Judicial Police (PJ) investigation of August 28, which the DN had also access, indicating a crime of tax fraud.
In practice, lawyers João Medeiros, Paulo Saragoça da Matta and Rui Patrício justify the request to close this case – which they had already asked for in September 2020 – with the fact that during the five years that the investigation has lasted, no evidence has been provided. that there has been a blue bag for third-party payers. It is therefore, argue Benfica’s lawyers, of “a handful of nothing, in reference to those who were the first suspicions of this trial”.
The document sent to DIAP states that the PJ’s report provides a “good report” that “despite the thorough, exhaustive and lengthy investigation of the facts, nothing has been found and nothing more is being charged than an (alleged) tax fraud”. And in that sense, they argue, the process has in any case since 2020 “went to the sphere of the Tax Authorities to assist the Public Prosecution Service”.
The PJ points in his conclusions that the funds allegedly coming from “simulated business” would have been funneled into the creation of the so-called “blue bag” that is “presumably used to make undocumented payments”. The PJ only concludes that “strong evidence has been gathered of the practice of the crime of qualified tax fraud” by the defendants Benfica SAD, Benfica Estádio, in the persons of the then President Luís Filipe Vieira, Domingos Soares Oliveira (administrator of SAD) and the then director Miguel Moreira who, according to the conclusions of the PJ, “designed a criminal plan, based on the fictitious allocation of costs to the said companies”. And before that, according to the same document, “they had the cooperation” of the company Questão Flexible, Lda and its managing partner José Bernardes, as well as the defendants José Raposo and Paulo Silva, who allegedly signed contracts for the provision of services, that ” enabled a fictitious allocation of costs of at least €2,265,660.00″.
This amount was allegedly transferred to the Flexible Demand bank accounts, and according to the PJ, these amounts were later withdrawn in cash by means of checks to José Raposo and Paulo Silva, and then false invoices were issued for computer consulting services.
In this sense, the PJ report points to the fact that for the 2016/17 sports year, Benfica SAD “obtained an undue capital advantage of EUR 64,768.00 in corporate tax and EUR 116,380 in VAT”. At the same time, it is pointed out that Benfica Estádio “has an unjustified share advantage of 154,100.00 in the 2016/17 sports year and 153,180.00 in the 2017/18 year, both in terms of VAT”.
The PJ also mentions that the administration “strongly indicates that the amounts transferred from the bank accounts” of Benfica SAD and Benfica Estádio, “which amounted to 2,265,660 euros, will have been refunded a total of 2,063,040.00 euros in the sphere of the Benfica Group”. A discrepancy that can allegedly be explained by José Bernardes’ commissions, which “resulted in obtaining an illegitimate share advantage of 113,053.46 euros in IRS for the calendar year 2017”.
“Free Affirmations”
Benfica’s lawyers’ arguments point to a sentence of the PJ’s conclusions: “It was not possible to establish the circumstances in which the amounts referred to [mais de dois milhões de euros] returned to the Benfica Group, nor to whom they were actually delivered and what their final destination is, i.e. for legal or illegal purposes.”
In this regard, Benfica’s lawyers insist that the services provided were “genuine” and emphasize that “there is no evidence to the contrary, let alone at a sufficiently high level of indictment”. And they even point to a fact they say is “curious” and devastating” to the prosecution’s statement: “The finding that Miguel Moreira questioned the values (“he’s outrageous… even abusive”) counterpart in contracts , which does not consent to a perceived community of wills and attempts to simulate contracts.” And in that sense, they reinforce the idea that this element “clearly hinders the derivation of an accusation” by the prosecution, as they argue that “affects the existence of the necessary sufficient evidence of the commission of a crime”.
Finally, Benfica reinforces the idea that the PJ “only assumes that such amounts would be used for undocumented payments”, which they say are “free statements”, after all, “nothing is attributed to it other than an alleged tax fraud”. “Therefore, the alleged ‘blue bag’ issue has been buried,” the lawyers assume, as it is the PJ report that says so. “It is high time to formally end 5 years of research”.
Source: DN
