In a recent interview, musician Ramoncín, together with Víctor Manuel, former members of SGAE's board, detailed how Urdangarin presented a supposedly harmless proposal. According to their account, Instituto Nóos offered to manage projects with promises to "improve the image" of the artists, using the figure of the emeritus king as a lure. It was a calculated move that caused contracts with SGAE worth more than €100,000 ($100,000) per year.
The hook: "Don Juan Carlos I is honorary president of SGAE," they claimed, suggesting that this alliance filled the organization elnacional.cat with trust. Ramoncín summed it up sarcastically: it was "a ridiculous situation," in which the symbolic authority of the monarch supposedly reassured the artists.
deceiving their victims
The plan not only deceived SGAE, but also resulted in a significant leak of funds. For at least three years, Instituto Nóos charged the cultural entity more than €100,000 ($100,000) annually for services never rendered. The total amount of misappropriated funds exceeds €300,000 ($300,000), money that was never used to improve the artistic image, but instead illegitimately fattened the pockets of Urdangarin and his partner Diego Torres.
Víctor Manuel summed it up this way: "They fooled us for three years." That trust, based on the Royal House, was used to legitimize a smokescreen that covered up a real scam.
sgae's silence
SGAE hasn't issued any recent statements. However, after the Nóos scandal became known, the institution became the focus of criticism for its lack of internal control. Meanwhile, Zarzuela removed Urdangarin from all official events in December 2011, describing his behavior as "not exemplary."
At the judicial level, Urdangarin was sentenced in 2017 to five years and ten months in prison for embezzlement, tax fraud, and influence peddling, among other crimes related to the Nóos case. In addition, it was confirmed that many of the sums used came from inflated public contracts that were never carried out.
On social media, several users have recalled that the use of the king's name was not only morally questionable, but also involved a betrayal of the public trust placed in the monarchy.
ramoncín and victor manuel's words provide information on an important issue
Ramoncín and Víctor Manuel's reflection sheds light on a little-known mechanism: the use of a symbolic figure, such as the king, to artificially inflate the credibility of a fraudulent project. This puts not only the main protagonist under scrutiny, but also the institutional fragility that makes this kind of maneuver possible.
In a context where public image mattered as much or more than real projects, it becomes clear how easily networks based on perception and royal prestige were woven.