The Supreme Court reduces the prison sentence for the former president of Pescanova from 8 to 6 years for manipulating accounts to attract investors

Together with the company, it must compensate the injured parties with more than 125 million euros

MADRID, 15 Feb. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court (TS) has reduced the prison sentence handed down by the National Court against the former president of Pescanova Manuel Fernández de Sousa-Faro by two years, from 8 to 6, by acquitting him of the crimes of fraud, document falsification and applying an extenuation for undue delays, confirming the rest of the sentence for manipulating the accounts to attract investors.

Thus, the Criminal Chamber has ratified the conviction of Fernández de Sousa-Faro as the perpetrator of a continuous crime of falsifying the annual accounts in media competition with an also continuous crime of falsifying economic and financial information, as well as for the crime of uplift of goods.

The court also maintains that, jointly and severally with the Pescanova company, it must compensate the injured investors, both companies and individuals, with more than 125 million euros.

The magistrates also acquitted the other accused of the crimes of forgery in a commercial document and aggravated fraud, for which reason they also reduced their sentences. In the case of the former financial director Antonio Taboas, it goes from 3 years and 6 months to 1 year and 3 months.

The sentences, as necessary cooperators of the crime of falsification in the annual accounts, of various executives of the company are also maintained, although they are imposed less punishment considering that they do not have the conditions, qualities or personal relationships that justify the guilt of the author.

In addition, the Supreme Court acquits Pescanova's external auditor, as well as the auditing company and, in terms of civil liability, the latter's insurer, considering that the former had careless or inattentive conduct, but not the malicious behavior that results enforceable with respect to the crimes for which he was convicted.

In the same way, the Supreme Court exonerates two companies that had been convicted as necessary cooperators of the crime of seizure of assets because it understands that the acts carried out by natural persons were not for the direct or indirect benefit of those.