Joan Laporta has gone to the Ciutat de la Justícia to testify as an investigator in a project that involved the promotion of the Club Deportiu football team and the creation of a network of football academies in China. At the exit, he refused to attend to the journalists and barely commented on the statement: “It went very well.” The current president of FC Barcelona was used as a lure for the investment. Also accused in the judicial investigation are Rafa Yuste, Laporta’s trusted man and vice president of the club; the former director of TV3 and former president of Reus Deportiu, Joan Oliver – who is also summoned to testify this Friday – and the economist Xavier Sala i Martín.
The investigation carried out by the Court of Instruction number 22 of Barcelona tries to find out the facts, focused on the investment offer made by a private banking agent ensuring high returns. One of the offers dealt with the investment in Core Store and assured a profitability of 6%. The resources invested had to be allocated to the execution of a strategic plan to achieve the rise of the . The second focused on investing in the company CSSB Limited through the purchase of shares. Its CEO was Oliver and its corporate purpose was to create a network of academies for soccer players in China.
The complainant joined the first project through a participatory credit of 50,000 euros over five years and the investment of another 54,000 euros through the subscription of shares. His defense considers that information about the company was omitted. Without results, in 2023 the loan contract was renewed after failing to obtain the agreed interest and a year later only part of the money was paid.
The complaint states that “the capital raising was based on the reputation and prestige of the participants, who presented themselves as guarantors of the project, thus offering an appearance of business solvency that did not correspond to reality.” At first, the court rejected opening proceedings, but the Barcelona Court considered opening them after confirming possible “incorrect management” and “there are indications of the commission of acts with criminal significance.” .
