Shakira’s trial by alleged tax fraud will be carried out Next Monday, November 20and whoever was her partner for more than 10 years, could appear to testify on her behalf.
Shakira and Antonio de la Rúa They were one of the most talked about couples at the time and it is well known that they did not remain on good terms.
Both ended their relationship with lawsuits and, therefore, it is surprising that the Argentine businessman testifies in favor of the Colombian star.
Why did Shakira and De la Rúa break up?
The Colombian and the Argentine met while she was promoting her album Where are the thieves?; For his part, he worked with his father Fernando de la Ruawho at that time was President of Argentina.
Both described their first meeting as love at first sight and although there was never marriage involved, they both got engaged in March 2001, and he even became their producer.
“Days of January” was one of the topics that Shakira dedicated to Alejandro and that shows the feeling of the Colombian towards De la Rúa: “I met you one day in January, with the moon on my nose. And since I saw that you were sincere, I got lost in your eyes.”
However, some Spanish media stated that the Argentine businessman was unfaithful to Shakira for at least six years. In an interview on Univision, a young woman named Marina Gallo He claimed that he had been De la Rúa’s lover for six years.
After almost a decade of being a couple, they both decided to end their relationship; However, the separation was not amicable, there were some legal fights and lawsuits for millions of dollars, although Shakira She ended up prevailing and emerging victorious.
Since August 2010, we made the mutual decision to give ourselves some time in our romantic relationship.
“We view this separation as temporary and as a time for individual growth as we continue to be partners in our businesses and professional lives,” they said in a statement.
How much does Shakira owe to the Spanish Treasury?
Next Monday the trial against Shakira in Barcelonafor his alleged tax fraud of almost 14.5 million euros to the Spanish Treasury.
Shakira is accused of six alleged crimes against the Public Treasury, for which the Prosecutor’s Office requests a sentence of more than eight years in prison and a fine of 23.8 million euros (25.85 million dollars).
The statement of the 46-year-old singer, who defends her total innocence and previously rejected an agreement with the accusations, is scheduled for that same day.
So far, the views of both parties are opposite. On the one hand, the Prosecutor’s Office considers that the interpreter of “Waka Waka” or “Hips don’t lie” He did not pay the taxes corresponding to income and assets in 2012, 2013 and 2014 at the time, despite the fact that he resided in Spain for more than the 183 days stipulated by law.
In its indictment, the Public Ministry, which in July filed a new complaint against him for other alleged tax irregularities, states that “with the desire not to pay taxes,” Shakira “used a corporate framework” already created, which included companies with headquarters in tax havens.
The artist’s lawyers defend, for their part, that she did not commit any wrongdoing since, despite having started a relationship in 2011 with the then FC Barcelona player Gerard Piqué, Shakira He led a nomadic life due to his international career, and his tax residence was in the Bahamas.
According to her defense, the singer only decided to settle in Barcelona shortly before the birth of her second child in January 2015.
“Ms. Mebarak has scrupulously complied with all her tax obligations in the multiple territories with which she has had professional ties,” they argued in the defense brief, recalling that Shakirawho now resides in Miami, has already paid 17.2 million to the Tax Agency for this cause“even without being satisfied”, and that he has no outstanding debts.
➡️ Join the El Sol de México channel on WhatsApp so you don’t miss the most important information
The trial 12 sessions are scheduled until December 14, with almost 120 witnesses summoned. But the singer, whose statement in 2019 already generated a great stir, could be excused from attending all of them in person, if she requests it and the court grants it.
|| With information from AFP ||