The defense of the television producer José Luis Moreno has presented a battery of briefs before the instructor of the Titella case in the National Court that appeal to common sense to claim his innocence against the list of accusations that weigh on him and that range from criminal organization in quality of chief to money laundering, going through a bank fraud estimated at 85 million euros. “It’s just, ridiculous,” he notes.
Moreno was arrested in the context of the Titella operation in July last year and released on bail that he posted with mortgage guarantees amounting to four million euros. The thesis of the investigators is that as a well-known character, he led an organization that was dedicated to bank fraud through the also accused Antonio Aguilera. When he was arrested and the plot was cut, he would have captured Argentine businessman Alejandro Roemmers as a private investor and would have defrauded him of another 35 million as an investment in a series that never saw the light of day.
The origin would be, according to the thesis of the investigators, in that he dragged a debt with the Treasury of 3 million euros that prevented him from accessing by his own means the financing he needed for his projects. Along the way, he would have profited, would have evaded other payments and would have led a system of false invoicing to cover up diversion of funds, it is presumed, abroad. His defense, in an extensive brief of allegations to which ABC had access, denies each and every one of the attributions.
«My representative is not the ‘Boss’ of any criminal organization, but a person with public relevance who has been operating in the entertainment sector for more than 50 years, being internationally known and recognized for his work in the field of audiovisual production ( to the point that a millionaire businessman, Mr. Roemmers, proposed to associate him for a period of ten years and exclusively, which meant ending his professional career with Mr. Roemmers) ”, says one of the writings.
As detailed, the companies linked to Moreno “have received 2,896,413.59 euros, that is, 3% of the total funds that are said to have been defrauded” and “they did not come from banking entities, but from companies for legal business reasons documentary evidence”, a loan with Aguilera that was returned; the transmission of the shares of two companies and as an investment in the TVE series “Aquí control yo y dot com” that the public entity would later cancel without broadcasting it.
It thus affects that if he received three of 85 million euros defrauded, he was oblivious to the “alleged concerted plan to defraud.” “It would not make any sense to create a criminal group for the profit of others,” he says. He says that in any case, he did not know “the ultimate origin” of the funds that Aguilera was providing him, who, unlike the producer, does have a criminal and police record. “As a consequence of the business relations with Mr. Aguilera, my principal has not only not obtained any profit but has suffered, quite the contrary, significant economic damage (in addition to reputational, social, personal and family damage that is seriously affecting their health),” he adds.
In this sense, he submits to the judge that Moreno “does not know practically any of those investigated” in the Titella case “and those few he does know were because of the fact that Aguilera had introduced them to him,” who was “one more financier ( …) without questioning the legality of the funds received from the remaining investors and lenders” that were supporting their projects and that “are not related in any way to alleged fraudulent activities with banking entities.”
As for the possible lifting of assets, it also denies the largest because the debt with the Treasury and Social Security currently amounts to 3.9 million euros in total, 50% of what it owed in 2017, and only the Real estate assets that have been appraised by the National High Court amount to 9.2 million euros, so it could settle “all the debts whose collection it is said that it was intended to frustrate, also resulting in a surplus.”
«Does it make sense to hide assets when the acquaintance triples the amount owed, and when during those same years almost 4,000,000 euros have been paid? Obviously not, “says the lawyer Francisco Calderón to the judge on behalf of José Luis Moreno.
This reasoning is extended to the ex-partner of the producer, Martin Czéhmester, whom they also represent, because he is accused of having sold an apartment bought in the Czech Republic, his country of origin, with funds from the plot when the National Court was already investigating. The brief highlights that that house was bought with a loan precisely because neither he nor Moreno managed the level of funds that the investigators point out and that the mortgage guarantee was executed because the Court seized the accounts of both and they could not continue facing the payments.
As for Roemmers, Moreno has been stating that there has been no scam. In this new pleadings brief, he highlights that the court has already clarified that the series did exist and was never finished and has focused on investigating the expenses incurred during its production. He reminds the court that all those expenses “were authorized by Mr. Fay, joint administrator of Dreamlight”, or what is the same, the man of Roemmers in the society that they founded half to carry out the series.
“Both have indicated in their respective summary statements that they do not have a single objective piece of information that allows them to affirm that invoices have been issued for services not provided or that funds have been diverted from society,” he highlights, to appeal, again, to reason: «It is not logical that, having an exclusive contract of 10 years, the purpose was to defraud the capitalist partner Mr. Roemmers and, furthermore, that this took place in the first of the productions (… ) It’s just, ridiculous.”
It adds that “the mere discrepancy of Mr. Roemmers with the greater or lesser quality of the series – discrepancy of who, moreover, is a layman and lacks all knowledge and experience in the audiovisual sector, and who is in open contradiction with the conclusions of up to three different experts, who precisely highlight its high quality and value-, or its discrepancy with the greater or lesser spirituality of the same, lacks relevance and criminal legal significance.
