ROSA GALLEMI BALAGUE - ANTONIO PUIG - JOSEP MARIA PUIG PLANAS - XAVIER PUIG ALSINA - MARC PUIG GUASCH - MANUEL PUIG ROCHA - FLAMAGAS/FLAMASATS SA, 20TH ISSUE

                                

PANAMA PAPERS-TAX ELUSION-BELONGING TO CARTELS-CONVICTIONS AGAINST PUIG

This installment explains enough aspects to understand who I am claiming everything previously explained in the different entries of this blog. Below I explain some of the various activities over the years in which the Puigs have participated and which on many occasions have affected myself, third parties and society as a whole. Everything that follows is in the public domain and is all real.

                    JUDICIAL INCIDENTS OF THE PUIG AND THEIR MULTINATIONALS

The known history of the Puig Group, a multinational with numerous lawsuits against it and with judgments as a result of them, is very descriptive, which explains the way of doing this multinational, which believing itself free of all rights, has acted, acts and if the law does not prevent it, it will act as best suits it. As a brief summary, I will detail some of the most notable judgments and cases in which he has been implicated in recent years, not counting those involving former employees.

                                            

                                                      ANTONIO PUIG S.A. CARTEL

A very striking case due to its seriousness and disloyalty towards its own clients, has been that of the complaint that Puig received from several of its consumers and for which it received a fine of €2.4 million.

All this came from the constitution of a Cartel that Puig carried out with other companies in the sector. Puig decided to carry out a covert price increase and plotted to do so by reducing the volume of bath and shower gel products that it introduced into its containers, while the amount sold that was declared was higher, thus constituting a deception and fraud against its customers. own customers and consumers.

In this way, Puig fraudulently tried to increase prices by no less than 15% to obtain greater benefit from its activities at the expense of the general public and its own customers. This conduct by Puig has been classified as very serious because it affects a large number of consumers.

One of the denounced companies, Henkel and which also constituted said Cartel, has been able to react correctly, since it agreed with the resolution and said it reaffirmed "the commitment to comply with the internal code of conduct of the company ", which honors her. Puig, who by the way proudly displays his code of ethics on his website, was unable to accept the complaint and, on top of that, announced an appeal for disagreeing with the indictment against said fraud.

We attach a copy of the text in question published online by El Periódico on 1/28/2010. “The Council of the National Competition Commission (CNC) has issued the first resolution regarding a leniency case. On February 27, 2008, the same day the leniency program came into effect, six companies went to the headquarters of the competition agency to denounce the existence of a cartel of bath and shower gel manufacturers.

Two of those companies -Henkel and Sara Lee- denounced the cartel that day, which has now been dismantled. But the Law for the Defense of Competition only grants full exemption from the fine to the first company that reports the existence of a cartel. Thus, only Henkel has been able to get rid of the penalty (which would have amounted to 4.2 million), while Sara Lee has seen her fine reduced by 40%, and will therefore have to face a fine of 3.7 million, compared to the 6.2 that would have corresponded.

Meanwhile, Puig and Colgate have been fined 2.4 and 2.1 million, respectively. And in the case of Colomer, who was also part of the investigation, the CNC has agreed to continue the investigations "to fully clarify his position regarding the terms in which he publicly distanced himself from the cartel," Competition explained yesterday through a note .”

Link https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2010/01/28/empresas/1264689581_850215.html

                                                                PANAMA PAPERS

                                

Following the following link https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/12149077 with information from FLAMAGAS S.A. CORPORATION of Barcelona, which is in turn a shareholder of the firm SKY BLUE FINANCE LIMITED registered in the British Virgin Islands and an entity linked in turn to the intermediary TAKA CORPORATE SERVICES LIMITED of Hong Kong, it is possible to glimpse the possible tax avoidance that the Puig and his company FLAMAGAS S.A. With its headquarters in Spain, where it obtains a good part of its wealth, it seems that they evade or avoid part of the possible national taxes through shell companies in different tax havens. 

COMPLAINT BY THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT OBSERVATORY OF THE IMAGE OF WOMEN

Referring to the advertising carried out by the Puig Group in its perfume advertisements Paco Rabanne Colonia One Million TV Ads, you can follow the following link for further explanation:

http://www.inmujer.gob.es/observatorios/observImg/informes/docs/Informe_2013.pdf

             OCU COMPLAINT FOR FALSE DATA IN CREAM SOLAR ISDIN/PUIG

                                                  

Once again the Puigs, through their company Isdin, have harmed the market, their own clients and the general public.

The Organization of Consumers and Users has detected through a comparative laboratory analysis that the ISDIN Fotoprotector Pediatrics Transparent Spray SPF 50+ cream offers "medium" protection (SPF 15) and not "very high", as indicated on its label. This cream is one of the most expensive on the market and with the worst benefits.

For its part, the Babaria Infantil Spray Protector SPF 50+ sun cream should be labeled as SPF 30, since it only offers “high” protection and not “very high”, as its labeling shows.

OCU has requested the AEMPS to carry out the necessary checks on these two products, as well as to cease their marketing and use, due to the potential risk involved in their use, especially in the case of the ISDIN sunscreen.

More detailed information can be obtained at the following link:

https://www.ocu.org/organizacion/prensa/notas-de-prensa/2019/cremsasolares300519

          PUIG HAS A JOINT PARTNERSHIP WITH SHAKIRA AND POSSIBLE TAX EVOSION

                                     

Scents & Senses Company SL, a company created in Barcelona in 2009 for "the creation or design, development and sale of fragrances and personal care products under the 'Shakira' brand", according to the documentation deposited in the Mercantile Registry. De la Rúa was a director until 2012 and its two shareholders are the perfume company Antonio Puig, S.A. and Geneurope Holding B.V. from the Netherlands. Basically, the former is in charge of the entire production, marketing and advertising process, while Shakira lends her image. For this service, a percentage of the benefits is transferred to the Dutch company. According to the latest available accounts from Scents & Senses Company, the Dutch firm would have accrued up to one million euros as a royalty for the use of the 'Shakira' brand in 2016 alone.

See https://www.elconfidencial.com/economia/paradise-papers/2018-01-27/shakira-delito-fiscal-hacienda-nuevas-evidencias_1512178/

             PARTICIPATION OF ANTONIO PUIG SA IN ANOTHER CARTEL OF THE SECTOR

The Puig company, Antonio Puig SA, has participated in another Cartel for the alteration of prices in the National Association of Perfumeria and Cosmetics (Stanpa) sector, condemned to pay €901,618.16. See more information at:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.contrast-lawseminars.be/site/assets/files/1140/5__stanpa_decision_7__2__2011_english_summary.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj5qf-a3YXkAhUszIUKHUB-BXU4BAgEWABA&BXU4BAg AOvVaw04K71Ir_yAffd7DhohFLIS

                                        MISLEADING ADVERTISING BY ANTONIO PUIG S.A.

                                                     

                                                                           

                                                                 

New conviction against Antonio Puig S.A. according to the Judgment of the Provincial Court of Barcelona (s. 15) of June 3, 2013 and that specifically it deals with the following facts:

Advertising that in any way, including its presentation, misleads or may mislead its recipients, may affect their economic behavior, or harm or be capable of harming a competitor is misleading. It is also misleading advertising that silences fundamental data of the goods, activities or services when said omission misleads the recipients.

The idea was to pass off as ANTONIO PUIG SA its products called TRESemme as professionals, but it made them available to final consumers, allowing them to purchase them in non-professional shops and making them believe that they were products used by professional hairdressers, when in actually this was not true. It is, as can be deduced, misleading advertising against the consumer.

The plaintiff, Procter & Gamble S.A. took this new case of ANTONIO PUIG S.A. to court, the latter company being convicted of misleading advertising towards consumers.

For more details you can visit the following link:

http://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/sites/default/files/987345_1.pdf

                                                DISCRIMINATION BY SEX

Another very sad case, since it concerns its own employees. Indeed, in the factories of the companies of the Puig group, a shameful situation of discriminatory treatment against the female gender was taking place. Most of the employees said at one point: ENOUGH. They stood up and denounced the company that for the same work that they carried out, they received nothing more and nothing less than only 50% of the salary of their male colleagues who carried out the same tasks.

After several conversations and requests with the management of Puig and seeing that this abnormal situation persisted over the months, the works council of Antonio Puig S.A. unanimously decided to denounce this clear injustice to the court. As was to be expected, the Judge agreed with the workers in the face of this situation of inequality and ordered the Puig company to recognize the right of the workers affected by the collective conflict not to be discriminated against based on sex and to declare the right of the workers, with the category of 1st and 2nd complementary activities officers, to receive the quantity and quality supplement in the same amount as that assigned to 1st and 2nd industry professionals, respectively.

Next we show what was explained about it in the link http://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/es/Resolucion/Show/2575

     ANTONIO PUIG S.A. FREEDOM FROM PAYING $31 MILLION IN TAXES IN SPAIN

                                        

The Puigs and their company Antonio Puig S.A. managed to evade and stop paying more than $31 million in one go to the Spanish Tax Agency.

The Puigs created a new infrastructure in the United States with several new companies such as Puig North America Inc, Puig USA, Puig Beauty USA, Puig Fragrance and Personal Care Inc. and Carolina Herrera Ltd. And in 2004, they were forced or interested to send almost $125 million to their companies in the United States to deal with the alleged losses in this market.

In order not to have to pay more taxes than what the Puig group was interested in, they decided to declare in the corresponding Corporation Tax, that this shipment of liquidity was, according to them, investments for export, when in reality they were capital contributions to deal with their possible American losses. For this reason, they decided to deduct 25% of these transfers, that is, $31 million. This tax relief is designed for actions that serve directly to promote exports and not for what the Puig group used it for.

A short time later, the Spanish Tax Agency decided to inspect the Puig group for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 and related to Corporation Tax, VAT 2005 and 2006 and Withholdings and Payments to Account. Non-resident taxation 2005 and 2006. The inspection lasted from July 2009 to July 2011 and was specifically carried out at that time on the following group companies: which in 2004 was made up, in addition to its parent company, by the thirteen following subsidiaries: A-08002180 MYRURGIA, S.A., B-58161894 DIVISIÓN PUIG ESPAÑA, S.L., A-08141020 KINESIA, S.A., A-08158289 ANTONIO PUIG, S.A., A-08201014 PUIG, S.A., B-28058840 CHEMICAL PRODUCTS. LOREBAT, S.L., A-08220063 ARAMBEL, S.A., B-62162367 DERMOCARE, S.L, B-60800646 ABRILCO, S.L., B-60800638 PUIG FRAGANCIAS, S.L., B-28053684 MONCLOA, S.L, A-60980646 BAL.PERFUMERÍA, S.L. -28610327 FLORALIA PERFUMERY, S.L. Notwithstanding this, the verification actions were extended exclusively to the parent company of group 61/00 and to the subsidiaries ANTONIO PUIG, S.A. and PERFUMERÍA GAL, S.A.

During these years, as we said, the Puig group accredited two deductions for export activities (DAEX) generated by the parent company (PUIG) and which in total amounted to more than $31 million. The duration of the inspection period by the Tax Agency was TWO YEARS. The same Tax Agency declared itself powerless to clarify the mess and says verbatim:

“The Inspectorate has not come to know if those funds actually reached PUIG USA or how they did it, because the entity has not been able to satisfactorily explain to the actuary how that huge mass of millions of dollars (more than 124,000,000) moved since PUIG AMERICA (the US holding company) to the various companies in which it participates, some in tax havens; It can hardly be said that the investments of such funds are directly related to the export activities from Spain of the PUIG Group. There is such a mess - and forgive us the expression - of transfers of funds from one company to another that the truth of what happened there is inscrutable; and what is most decisive, the entity has achieved it - and surely because it has not wanted to - explain it ”.

This explanation can be followed in detail at the following link:

https://www.iberley.es/jurisprudencia/sentencia-administrativo-n-7-2016-an-sala-contencioso-sec-2-rec-330-2013-10-12-2015-47470354

There are other lawsuits against the Puigs in various countries such as China, the United States, Luxembourg and so on, for which the limits and desire for expansion and monopoly regarding their Clipper lighter have been set.

And we could thus continue with other information related to the above, also foreign, with which the Puig Multinationals have in other continents, which demonstrates the style of work that they follow and specifically with their companies, including Flamagas/Flamasats. and that unfortunately it is the fairly widespread system of this type of business groups that believe they are above the rest of the citizens, governments and the Law.

 

There are other trials against the Puig in va in different tax havens. shellcompanies in different tax havens.