The judge in the Stratvs case, Silvia Muñoz, has ordered action to be taken on the companies of businessman Juan Francisco Rosa, as she believes they may be being used as a "screen" to "avoid" his financial responsibilities in this procedure. More than a year after the magistrate imposed a bail of almost 900,000 euros, the businessman has not deposited the money and the Court has not found any assets in his name that can be seized to cover that sum.
Until now, some properties owned by Rosa as an individual have been seized, but the amount is insufficient, as most of his assets would be in the name of companies, on which seizures cannot be ordered. For this reason, the judge has decided to apply a judicial measure that had not been used until now in the Canary Islands, the "lifting of the veil" on these companies.
In an order dated June 21, the magistrate explains the origin of this figure and cites both European and Spanish judgments issued in the last century, which conclude that in certain cases, to "avoid fraud", "the courts can draw back the veil to have knowledge of the real ownership of the assets and act accordingly." This prevents the use of "legal forms intended for lawful purposes," such as the creation of a company, to "achieve impunity for behaviors deserving of punishment."
Among other judgments relating to the lifting of the veil, the judge refers to one about a company that was "in the hands of a small family group," which was who really "controlled and enjoyed the assets." Thus, according to the Supreme Court, it was revealed that there was no "distinction between the assets of the defendant and those of the company." And she believes the same is happening with several of Rosa's companies. That is, that the separation of assets is "in reality a fiction." For this reason, the judge has ordered this measure, which allows "breaking the hermeticism of the legal entity (the company), penetrating its interior and putting a stop to the abuses that can be committed under its protective cloak."
The Justice will act on three family businesses of Rosa
In her resolution, the magistrate orders the lifting of the veil on three specific companies, "Juan Francisco Rosa e Hijos", "BTL Lanzarote" and "Bodegas Stratvs", which are the ones that appear in the proceedings of this judicial case. Regarding them, the magistrate points out that they are "family companies." As for BTL, which is accused as a legal entity in the Stratvs case, the judge points out that in June 2005 it was absorbed by Juan Francisco Rosa e Hijos, of which "the spouses are the sole and joint administrators," that is, Juan Francisco Rosa and his wife.
"With the lifting of the veil, it is avoided that such companies act as a screen for pecuniary responsibilities, as they sustain the enrichment of the defendant's work activity, as well as the patrimonial yield," the magistrate's order points out, which explains that "without lifting the veil, no seizure could be made" on those assets.
It was in June 2015 when the judge imposed a bail of almost 900,000 euros on Juan Francisco Rosa, when issuing the order ordering the opening of oral trial in the Stratvs case. Of that sum, 267,000 euros are to cover the fines to which he may be sentenced and 405,426 for the amount that could be imposed on him as civil liability. When imposing the bail, a third more was added to both figures, as established by the Criminal Procedure Law.
Asset investigation on Armas Matallana
The judge has also ordered similar measures against another defendant in Stratvs, the architect Miguel Ángel Armas Matallana, who faces the second largest prison request (the Prosecutor's Office asks for 15 years in prison for Rosa and 10 for the architect). Armas was also imposed a bail of 636,568 euros, but he has not covered this amount either, nor have seizures been able to be made to cover it, as no properties have been found in his name.
For this reason, the magistrate has ordered to carry out an "asset investigation" of the companies "in which he has participation or is an administrator." And it is that in his case, in the cause "there is no direct information on the participation in companies or businesses", so the judge has decided to send a request to the Mercantile Registry, so that it sends "complete information" on the "composition and administration" of the companies in which he intervenes.
Once that information is received, the judge points out that "the proportional part of shares or participations will be seized or, where appropriate, the veil of the legal entity will be lifted." The latter would be done if it were determined that these companies "act as a screen", by "depositing in them the enrichment of the work activity of the defendant, as well as the patrimonial yield."
Pending that asset investigation, the appeal presented by the defense of Armas Matallana against this judicial order allows us to conclude that he does appear as an administrator or partner in some company. "We consider it excessive and unjustified to agree to the lifting of the veil in a generalized way on those companies of which my client may be a partner or administrator," his lawyer points out in the appeal presented on June 29.
