The businessman who financed Alvise claims to have confessed to this payment and asks the judge to “save” his company and not seize his Ferraris

He crypto-entrepreneur Alvaro Romilloprosecuted for alleged fraud, appealed the decision of Judge José Luis Calama to confiscate luxury cars linked to companies in his group, Madeira Investment Club (MIC). Among these vehicles, there are several Ferrarisa Jaguar E-Type or a Porsche Cayenne.

In a letter dated this Wednesday, his lawyer, Francisco Miranda, recalls that Romillo admitted before the prosecution to having paid 100,000 euros in cash to Alvise Pérezwhich ended up being used to finance his electoral campaign for the European elections.

Miranda points out that this “self-assessment” -as he calls it- ended up causing the crypto-entrepreneur also ended up being investigated for a possible crime of illegal party financing.

In addition to challenging the confiscation of the luxury cars, Romillo’s lawyer appealed the judge’s refusal to appoint a receiver to prevent the bankruptcy of companies linked to the MIC.

Calama, president of the Central Investigating Court number 4 of the National Tribunal, opposed it. However, faced with his refusal, the defense of crypto-entrepreneur points out that if the Madeira Invest Club and its component companies go bankrupt, it would be difficult for Romillo to compensate the investors who denounced him for the alleged scam.

In the letter presented by EL ESPAÑOL, Romillo’s lawyer reminds the judge that his client “filed a complaint” in which he admitted having paid 100,000 euros to Alvise, assuming “the civil or criminal liability that could arise from these events”.

And he underlines his collaboration with Justice and his desire to “compensate the injured people, for whom it is absolutely necessary that the protective measure be granted”. [la designación por parte de Calama de un administrador judicial]”In fact, the office Zaballos Lawyerswhich represents hundreds of whistleblowers, supports the appointment of a person by the judge to avoid the bankruptcy of companies.

Romillo’s defense opposes the seizure of the luxury vehicles because, in its opinion, the judicial resolution that ordered their seizure is not duly justified. In his appeal, Miranda emphasizes that the judge must explain the relationship between the property he orders confiscated and the crime committed.

“Like any precautionary measure, provisional confiscation must be governed by the principle of proportionality and must be adopted in a reasoned manner, according to a duly explained rational and logical process which, precisely because of the need to establish its link with the crime, must necessarily be individualized for each of the assets confiscated as a precautionary measure”, explains the lawyer.

“With all due respect, we are faced with a generic motivation, not very concrete and which does not even explain its purpose,” he criticizes.

Indeed, as Miranda points out, his intention to have a receiver to protect the Madeira Invest Club group companies would also affect cars registered in the name of several of these companies.