看板 FCBarcelona 關於我們 聯絡資訊
http://goo.gl/6jt8lA 馬卡報10/10的新聞,跟一個現職政府部門律師Marcos Mas的QA,之前在巴薩的紀律委員會 擔任過職務 原文不全部翻譯,大概的重點如下 1.Marcos Mas認為此案子最終會付錢了事。 2.目前是"檢察官"已經撤消對Messi的訴訟,只針對他爸,就是犯罪事實確實存在,但是檢 察官認為Messi並不完全知情,所以對他撤銷告訴。 3."稅務機關"認為messi知情,所以跟律師團研議對messi提起訴訟,但"稅務機關"並 非司法單位,有沒有罪不是他們說的算,他們可以送交證據,可以請檢察官調查,但他們 絕對無權力認定任何人在法律上有罪還是無罪。 4.檢察官不可能改變主意再對messi本人提起訴訟 5.税務機關的首要目標並不是要把人關進監牢裡,或是殺雞敬猴,他們只有覺得有不法, 就會持續追查 6.司法單位願意和解嗎? 當然,款項有收回來就好 7.最理想的結果是什麼? 稅務機關收回該有的稅金還有額外的罰款 ------------------------------------------------------- 我知道很多人覺得很扯,你簽的名,怎麼可能你不清楚這筆收入,梅爸堅稱兒子當時還未 成年(2007年)對外事務都是他一手打理,兒子時間都耗在俱樂部練球,不清楚實情,檢 察官或認為沒有明顯證據指向messi知情,或是只想要和解達成協議,收回欠稅跟罰金就好 沒必要真的把人抓去關,這我們不清楚,反正結果就是檢察官不起訴messi,片面認為 messi有罪的實在無法理解,法律上要的是證據,除非你手上握有確切的證據能夠推翻檢察 官的決定,或是如同Marcos Mas所言,檢察官的重點並不是在messi有沒有罪知不知情 或許有些人有處理過很多類似的案件,但不是所有的案件都一樣,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(以下簡稱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. -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 1.173.98.73 ※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/FCBarcelona/M.1444525712.A.B0F.html ※ 編輯: babylonzoo (1.173.98.73), 10/11/2015 09:24:51 ※ 編輯: babylonzoo (1.173.98.73), 10/11/2015 09:29:51
Serphi: 就回應你最後一次吧。首先是你貼的連結和你的文章意義不 10/11 14:35
Serphi: 符合,再來是從你各種回應中很明顯可以看出你對法律和和稅 10/11 14:35
Serphi: 法的了解不深入,你提到例子很多是漏洞百出 但我也懶的糾 10/11 14:35
Serphi: 正你畢竟我想解釋的也都說了,最後就是梅西會不會被罰也真 10/11 14:35
Serphi: 關我的事 所以就這樣吧 10/11 14:35
1. 文中2.3點的確不是原文所提及,是該事件的最近的發展,但其他點確實是原文所說 2.我並沒有否認逃稅,您上一篇論述的大部分是事實,但我所著重的地方在messi有沒有罪 因為您認為messi絕對知情,所以有罪,就跟西班牙稅務機關緊咬的messi的論點是一樣 重點是,檢察官經過一番的調查後已經對messi撤銷告訴,只對meesi爸提起訴訟,在法治 的國家,這代表一定程度messi不知情且無罪吧 一個國家司法機構才是代表法律,而不是稅務機關代表法律 3.合法節稅跟違法逃稅只在於一線之隔,本質上沒有太大的差異,messi爸是利用海外的帳 戶,海外成立的公司來避稅,但顯然他並沒有精透西班牙的法律,所以被抓到違法 蘋果把大量利潤合法的灌在愛爾蘭的子公司,美國稅法因為該子公司地址不在美國課不到 稅,愛爾蘭因為跨國企業子公司不需要在當地繳稅也課不到稅,所以蘋果成功合法的避開 了這部分的稅務,但這兩者本質上有差異嗎?蘋果公司難道就不是惡意的規避賦稅? 4.有沒有針對巴薩,巴薩也公開表態了 http://goo.gl/BKqvCU 5.您提出了很多論述,但在沒看過任何證據下就用您的經驗推翻西班牙檢察官經過調查後 的裁決,我想這才是不可思議的地方
Zambro: 國家律師團還是法務部的司法單位喔~ 10/11 16:46
allenyuwei: b大挺堅持的阿.....雖然我看不懂你再堅持什麼XD 10/11 19:11
allenyuwei: 有人已經解釋的很清楚啦.....到底是.... 10/11 19:12
※ 編輯: babylonzoo (1.173.98.73), 10/11/2015 21:48:51 ※ 編輯: babylonzoo (1.173.98.73), 10/11/2015 22:04:21