http://goo.gl/6jt8lA 马卡报10/10的新闻，跟一个现职政府部门律师Marcos Mas的QA，之前在巴萨的纪律委员会 担任过职务 原文不全部翻译，大概的重点如下 1.Marcos Mas认为此案子最终会付钱了事。 2.目前是"检察官"已经撤消对Messi的诉讼，只针对他爸，就是犯罪事实确实存在，但是检 察官认为Messi并不完全知情，所以对他撤销告诉。 3.＂税务机关＂认为messi知情，所以跟律师团研议对messi提起诉讼，但＂税务机关＂并 非司法单位，有没有罪不是他们说的算，他们可以送交证据，可以请检察官调查，但他们 绝对无权力认定任何人在法律上有罪还是无罪。 4.检察官不可能改变主意再对messi本人提起诉讼 5.税务机关的首要目标并不是要把人关进监牢里，或是杀鸡敬猴，他们只有觉得有不法， 就会持续追查 6.司法单位愿意和解吗? 当然，款项有收回来就好 7.最理想的结果是什麽? 税务机关收回该有的税金还有额外的罚款 ------------------------------------------------------- 我知道很多人觉得很扯，你签的名，怎麽可能你不清楚这笔收入，梅爸坚称儿子当时还未 成年（2007年）对外事务都是他一手打理，儿子时间都耗在俱乐部练球，不清楚实情，检 察官或认为没有明显证据指向messi知情，或是只想要和解达成协议，收回欠税跟罚金就好 没必要真的把人抓去关，这我们不清楚，反正结果就是检察官不起诉messi，片面认为 messi有罪的实在无法理解，法律上要的是证据，除非你手上握有确切的证据能够推翻检察 官的决定，或是如同Marcos Mas所言，检察官的重点并不是在messi有没有罪知不知情 或许有些人有处理过很多类似的案件，但不是所有的案件都一样，不能以偏概全 ------------------------------------------- 原文： "The Messi case should end in a fine" Marcos Mas, a government lawyer who previously served on Barça's Disciplinary Commission and Club Statutes Reform Commission, analysed the situation for MARCA, breaking things down into ten questions and answers. His opinion is that a deal will eventually be cut, with the star paying a fine and avoiding jail. Q:Is there any possibility of Messi going to prison? Marcos Mas(以下简称M):He shouldn't do. Q:Why are there differences between the stances of the tax authorities and the Public Prosecution Office? M:Because they serve different interests. Q:Can the Public Prosecution Office change its mind on the day of the trial? M:No, that's impossible. Q:Why have things been allowed to get this far, rather than preventing Leo from having to sit in the dock? M:Because so far there has been no agreement where the facts are concerned. The lawyers defending the player have never recognised the facts, for which reason an agreement has been out of the question. Q:Is it too late to avoid Leo sitting in the dock? M:An agreement or settlement can be reached even on the day of the trial. Q:When will the trial be and what stage are we at in the proceedings? M:It's impossible to say right now. Q:Could it clash with, say, a key Champions League game, forcing Messi to miss it? M:In the event of such a clash, the hearing could be postponed if a valid reason were substantiated. Q:What is the tax authorities' primary objective in this case? M:They are not looking to imprison anyone or to set an example about paying taxes. If they believe a criminal offence has been committed, they are obligated to take action. Q:Is the State Legal Service willing to reach a settlement? M:Of course, so long as the relevant sums are recouped. Q:What is the ideal conclusion to this case? M:The best thing for the tax authorities would be to secure the unpaid amount plus a fine for the public coffers. It is obviously in the player's best interests to avoid the ordeal of a trial conducted under an intense media spotlight. --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 1.173.98.73 ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/FCBarcelona/M.1444525712.A.B0F.html ※ 编辑: babylonzoo (1.173.98.73), 10/11/2015 09:24:51 ※ 编辑: babylonzoo (1.173.98.73), 10/11/2015 09:29:51 1. 文中2.3点的确不是原文所提及，是该事件的最近的发展，但其他点确实是原文所说 2.我并没有否认逃税，您上一篇论述的大部分是事实，但我所着重的地方在messi有没有罪 因为您认为messi绝对知情，所以有罪，就跟西班牙税务机关紧咬的messi的论点是一样 重点是，检察官经过一番的调查後已经对messi撤销告诉，只对meesi爸提起诉讼，在法治 的国家，这代表一定程度messi不知情且无罪吧 一个国家司法机构才是代表法律，而不是税务机关代表法律 3.合法节税跟违法逃税只在於一线之隔，本质上没有太大的差异，messi爸是利用海外的帐 户，海外成立的公司来避税，但显然他并没有精透西班牙的法律，所以被抓到违法 苹果把大量利润合法的灌在爱尔兰的子公司，美国税法因为该子公司地址不在美国课不到 税，爱尔兰因为跨国企业子公司不需要在当地缴税也课不到税，所以苹果成功合法的避开 了这部分的税务，但这两者本质上有差异吗？苹果公司难道就不是恶意的规避赋税？ 4.有没有针对巴萨，巴萨也公开表态了　http://goo.gl/BKqvCU 5.您提出了很多论述，但在没看过任何证据下就用您的经验推翻西班牙检察官经过调查後 的裁决，我想这才是不可思议的地方 ※ 编辑: babylonzoo (1.173.98.73), 10/11/2015 21:48:51 ※ 编辑: babylonzoo (1.173.98.73), 10/11/2015 22:04:21