Montse Mínguez's partner bought a yacht company with no income

Montse Mínguez's partner acquired a yacht company that declared no income in June, according to a report signed by Fernando Tadeo. For now, the deal rests on a company with no known revenue.

The trail of a striking purchase is not always in the price. Sometimes it lies in what the company being bought does not have: clients, sales, activity. A yacht firm with no income is, on paper, a shell. And that is what has come to light about the deal that **Montse Mínguez**'s partner closed last **June**, according to the report by **Fernando Tadeo**.

## A company with no revenue

That is the central fact: the company acquired deals in yachts and records no income. It is no minor detail. A company can exist for years without invoicing, but when it changes hands and its corporate purpose is an expensive asset like a boat, the question asks itself. Why buy a structure with no business?

The answer is not in the headline. The published report does not detail the amount of the deal or the assets backing it. Nor does it clarify whether the company has debts, owns any vessel, or whether its activity is purely instrumental. These are the questions any buyer would ask before signing.

## Why everyone is watching the money

Public interest in this kind of purchase does not come from morbid curiosity. It comes from a basic rule: money leaves a trail when it comes in and when it goes out. A company with no income that is bought and sold can serve many legitimate purposes, from wealth restructuring to an investment awaiting a business. It can also be a piece in an opaque structure.

The difference between one and the other is marked by the documentation. Without it, any reading is speculation. And it should be said clearly: a company not invoicing is not a crime. Buying such a company is not either. What demands explanation is the whole picture.

## What remains to be known

The report signed by **Fernando Tadeo** focuses on the deal, but does not close the circle. There are no sale figures, no identification of the sellers, no detail of the tax regime applied. Any serious analysis of the case goes through there.

Meanwhile, the public debate mixes two levels that should be separated: suspicion and fact. The fact is the June purchase of a yacht firm with no income. The suspicion is whatever anyone wants to project onto it. And in matters of money and possible crimes, the presumption of innocence is not a decoration.