Justice orders investigation of FC Barcelona president over complaint of alleged fraud

BARCELONA. – The Barcelona Court ordered the reopening of an investigation against the president of FC Barcelona, Joan Laporta, and the vice president of the entity, Rafael Yuste, after admitting a complaint filed by an investor who claims to have lost 100,000 euros in projects linked to both directors.

You may be interested in:Trump puts pressure again: threatens to withdraw 2026 World Cup venues from Democratic cities

The judicial decision reverses the previous case filing, ordered by Court of Instruction number 22, and now obliges new proceedings to be carried out to determine if the complainant was a victim of what the court calls a possible "criminalized business". The complainant, represented by the lawyer Pepe Oriola, also directs accusations against the economist Xavier Sala i Martín, former director of the club, as well as against the former director of TV3 and former owner of CF Reus Deportiu. In addition, she demands responsibilities from the companies in which she made the investment that she claims to have lost.

A Series of Similar Complaints

This case is added to three previous complaints related to investments in the Hong Kong-based company CSSB Limited, a case in which Laporta had already testified as a suspect last January before another judge in Barcelona. The reopened lawsuit was initially dismissed in June, after the Prosecutor's Office concluded that there was no clear evidence of deception, attributing the failure of the investment to poor management and breach of contractual agreements. However, the Court warns that the previous files were produced without exhausting the necessary diligence, calling those decisions “premature”.

Possible indications of a crime

The court points out in its ruling that the complaint describes facts that could have "criminal significance", highlighting:

• Lack of precise information about the actual destination of the funds.
• Use of companies with serious economic problems to channel the investment.
• Raising capital based on the public reputation of those involved.
• Promises of business solvency that did not match reality.
• Agreements presented as participations or participatory loans that, in practice, functioned as simple loans.

These elements, according to the court, could exceed the scope of civil law and point towards behaviors consistent with fraud or fraudulent administration. The case will now return to instruction to complete the investigation and determine if the facts warrant formal prosecution of those involved.