The following is the most recent and relevant case law on money laundering:
Commentary on the Judgment of the Audiencia Nacional (Criminal Chamber) No. 14/2020, of June 30, 2020.
Read here our commentary to the referred Judgment, where we analyze the accessory consequence of art. 129 of the Criminal Code imposed on a bank involved in money laundering.
The Audiencia Nacional acquits Sandro Rosell and 5 other defendants for the crimes of money laundering and criminal group.
Recently, the National Court has issued its Judgment No. 14/2019, dated April 24, by which it acquits Alexandre Rosell Feliú (aka “Sandro Rosell”), businessman and former president of Futbol Club Barcelona between 2010 and 2014, of the crimes of money laundering and criminal group for which he had been accused, and likewise the Court acquits other individuals who had also been accused of the same crimes.
You can read the full article and download the judgment by clicking here.
On July 3, 2019, the Appeals Chamber of the Audiencia Nacional dismissed the appeal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and confirmed the acquittal judgment of April 24, 2019, which became final when the Public Prosecutor’s Office decided not to file an appeal in cassation before the Supreme Court. Thus, the acquittal of Sandro Rosell became final.
Judgment no. 36/2018 of the Third Section of the Criminal Chamber of the National Court, dated October 18, 2018.
Recently, the National Court has issued its Judgment No. 36/2018, dated October 18, 2018, by which it acquits several defendants (individuals) for the crimes of unlawful association of art. 515.1 of the Criminal Code and the crime of money laundering of articles 301.1 and 302.1 in relation to art. 74 of the Criminal Code for which they had been accused and also acquitted several companies that had also been accused, the Court also agreed that the dissolution of another series of companies as had been requested by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in its indictment was not appropriate.
You can read the full article and download the Judgment by clicking here.
The crime of money laundering in the “CASO NÓOS” judgment
The Supreme Court has recently issued its Judgment no. 277/2018, of June 8, in which it partially upheld the appeal filed by the representations, among others, of Mr. Ignacio Urdangarían Liebaert and Mr. Diego Torres Pérez against the Judgment issued by the Provincial Court of Palma de Mallorca on February 17, 2016, which convicted, among others, the aforementioned Ignacio Urdangarín Liebaert as the author of the crimes of prevarication, embezzlement of public funds, fraud against the administration, influence peddling and 2 crimes against the Public Treasury, although it acquitted him, among others, of the crime of money laundering.
You can read the full article and download the complete Ruling by clicking here.
Judgment No. 13/17 of February 17, 2017 of the First Section of the Provincial Court of the Balearic Islands – “CASO NÓOS”.
The Provincial Court of the Balearic Islands has sentenced Mr. Ignacio Urdangarín Liebaert to a total of 6 years and 3 months in prison for a continuous crime of prevarication in medial competition with a continuous crime of falsification of public documents, a crime of embezzlement of public funds, a crime of fraud against the administration, a crime of influence peddling and two crimes against the Public Treasury. However, he has been acquitted of the crime of money laundering of which he was accused.
Not so his former partner, Diego Torres, who has been convicted of money laundering and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and a fine of twice the value of the laundered assets, amounting to 689,537.24 euros.
Diego Torres created an international corporate structure based in Belize and the United Kingdom “with the aim of hiding the tax quota stolen from the corresponding fiscal taxation in order to incorporate it back into the legal traffic and obtain the benefits derived from the tax regime to which these structures are subject”.
The Sentence continues: “In order to hide such profits and incorporate them into the legal traffic, Diego Torres, knowing that they did not reflect real services, ordered MarcoAntonio Tejeiro, to whom he gave the appropriate instructions, the preparation of invoices that were issued by companies integrated in this international structure against the Nóos Institute Association or among the companies of the international network, to finally end up with these profits in accounts opened in banks in Andorra – owned by Diego Torres and Ana María Tejeiro -, in banks in Luxembourg in the name of the companies of the international structure and, finally, in the accounts owned by Mr. Diego Torres Pérez and Ms. Ana María Tejeiro, in Luxembourg in the name of the companies of the international structure and, finally, in the accounts of Mr. Diego Torres and Ms. Ana María Tejeiro. Diego Torres Pérez and Ms. Ana María Tejeiro Losada opened in Luxembourg banks (Crédit Agricole and Crédit Suisse)”.
The Provincial Court of the Balearic Islands states, however, that “Ignacio Urdangarín Liebaert’s participation in the concealment and conversion of the amounts subtracted from taxation has not been proven” and later adds that “on the dates when such operations were most intense”, Urdangarin’s relationship with Nóos “had ceased”.
You can read the full sentence by clicking here.
Supreme Court Ruling No. 331/2017 of May 10.
This sentence alludes to and condemns the so-called “self-laundering” which is defined as “the laundering of proceeds originating from a criminal activity committed by the launderer himself”.
A well-known drug trafficker is accused of carrying out this illicit act, with the collaboration of his parents. In addition, it is a continuous crime that is maintained over time with the uninterrupted acquisition of numerous movable and immovable assets for a value much higher than his lawful income.
The perpetrator was charged and tried for having laundered a total amount of 256,635.54 euros, and sentenced to 2 years and 6 months imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 euros, and his parents to one year and eight months imprisonment each, with the accessory penalty of a fine of 20,000 euros. As they had been charged with very qualified undue delays, they were considered as mitigating factors and the sentence was reduced by one degree.
You can read the full sentence by clicking here.
STS No. 939/2016 of December 15.
It is of interest as it recalls the evidence supporting the illicit origin of the money: (a) Importance of the amount of the laundered money; (b) Linkage of the perpetrators with illicit activities or persons related to them; (c) The unusual or disproportionate nature of the increase in wealth of the subject; (d) The nature and characteristics of the economic operations carried out; e) The inexistence of lawful justification of the income that allows the realization of those operations; f) Weakness of the explanations about the illicit origin of those capitals; g) Existence of front companies or financial networks that are not supported by economic activities that are accreditedly lawful.
You can read the full sentence by clicking here.
STS No. 928/2016 of December 14.
On the one hand, this sentence states that the evidence that must be taken into account to reach the conviction that the goods come from drug trafficking: 1) Knowledge of the details of the specific operations is not required, but exclusively their generic origin. 2) As to the knowledge required, practical knowledge obtained through experience and reason is sufficient. 3) Eventual malice is sufficient: it is enough that the accused has sufficient data to be able to infer that the money comes from drug trafficking. 4) Indicative evidence is sufficient.
On the other hand, it provides that the crime of money laundering cannot be considered a continuing offense (with some exceptions).
You can read the full sentence by clicking here.
STS No. 864/2016 of November 16.
This ruling specifies that “the typical action sanctioned as a crime of laundering does not consist in the simple fact of acquiring, possessing or using the acquired profits but, as the type specifies, in carrying out these or other acts when they tend to conceal or cover up the illicit origin of the profits”.
You can read the full sentence by clicking here.
STS Nº 690/2015 de 27 de octubre.
Esta sentencia recalca los requisitos de ocultación o encubrimiento del orígen ilícito de las ganancias que deben concurrir en la conducta a efectos de encajar en el tipo penal de blanqueo de capitales. La Sentencia finalmente absuelve a los acusados por considerar el Tribunal que los hechos probados resultan insuficientes para vincular los ingresos de los acusados con los actos de tráfico penados.
You can read the full sentence by clicking here.
STS No. 491/2015 of July 23.
Laundering and its differences with self-declaration: it is not a case of co-penalization as long as the will to activate a process of integration or reconversion of the assets obtained through the prior commission of a criminal act is accredited, thus giving the appearance of legality to the profits associated with the crime.
You can read the full sentence by clicking here.
STS No. 506/2015 of July 27.
It examines money laundering by imprudence, and thus states: “It must be considered that the person who ignores the illicit origin of the assets is acting imprudently because he has failed to comply with the objective duty of care imposed by art. 301 3º. Indeed, it is widely accepted in both doctrine and case law, the conclusion that recklessness does not fall on the conduct itself, but on the knowledge of the criminal origin of the goods (SSTS 286/2015, May 19; 412/2014 of May 20; 1257/2009, December 2; 1025/2009, October 22; 16/2009, January 27; 960/2008, December 26 and 103472005, September 14, among others). This criterion is congruent with the fact that in this reckless modality, the penalty is not increased even if the goods come from crimes of drug trafficking, corruption or against land management, which indicates that the recklessness does not fall on the conduct, but on the knowledge of the origin”.
You can read the full sentence by clicking here.
STS No. 265/2015 of April 29.
It exposes the general doctrine of money laundering and the reasons that justify the punishment of self-laundering. It points out the differences with receiving. Likewise, with respect to self-laundering, i.e., the laundering of proceeds originating from a criminal activity committed by the launderer himself, this judgment states that it is specifically punished by the criminal offense of Article 301 of the Criminal Code.
You can read the full sentence by clicking here.
