Together with another colleague, he gave companies the opportunity to buy it without VAT
MADRID, July 24 (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Supreme Court (TS) has confirmed the very serious offense of a Civil Guard who committed inconsistencies with his position by selling, together with another Benemérita agent, wine that he sold without applying VAT to restaurants in the province of Valladolid.
The Military Chamber, in a ruling collected by Europa Press, has endorsed the six-month suspension of the Civil Guard’s employment as it proved it sold wine from a winery to two restaurants in nearby communities between May and July 2020 in Laguna de Duero (Valladolid) where they were used.
The restaurants agreed to buy three cases of wine, but with VAT and because they “offered it in uniform, since those in charge of the establishments have their own suppliers,” according to the judgment of July 13.
One of the shoppers was ‘cut off’, surprised when they showed him the plate, which didn’t seem ‘normal’ as this was the first time this had happened to him. “Sometimes you think if you take it from them, they’ll take better care of you in case of a robbery or something,” he said.
From the joint assessment of the evidence, the Military Chamber concludes that the sanctioned agent “proposed and effected” the sale of wine in cooperation with his partner, who was the one in uniform, while delivering the cases in plain clothes.
“In short, the evidence available to the sanctioning authority is sufficient in itself to understand that there is more than enough evidence lawfully obtained and practiced to incriminate, incriminating, or accusatory content.” (. . .) “can therefore not be branded as illogical, arbitrary, irrational or implausible”.
In response to the agent, the judges point out that he is limited to disagreeing with the facts reported in the sanctions file by showing “an alternative and obviously different version” that does not match the sales invoices presented by two restaurants, for example, because his argument is “only rhetorical and contradictory”.
The judges point out that the Civil Guard instructor who drew up the sanctions file “did not arbitrarily and unreasonably refuse to take the documentary evidence in question”, as the applicant alleged, who was not “defenseless” as he “qualifies himself to argue the lack of practice of this test”.