The judge believes there is enough evidence to charge her, along with 22 others, with a crime of subterfuge in sentencing
MADRID, August 3 (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Criminal Chamber of the National Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Judge of the National Supreme Court, José Luis Calama, by which he proposes to try a total of 24 people, including seven officials from the Autonomous Community of Madrid and the mayors of the cities of Chinchón and Velilla de San Antonio alleged subterfuges in public procurement in a series of small works granted to the company Efial Consultoría SL
The Third Section’s decision comes after reviewing the defendants’ various appeals against the Calama decision in March this year. They understand that the car is sufficiently motivated and therefore there is no helplessness as suggested by the subjects.
It should be remembered that the investigation was launched in 2013 before a court in Vendrell, following a complaint by the Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding possible irregularities in public procurement by the Municipality of Torredembarra in Catalonia.
As a result of the initial investigations, the Vendrell Court recognized the existence of a fraudulent mechanism operated by the Efial company in numerous municipalities in Spain and referred part of its investigation to the National Court. At that time, the judge opened three separate pieces.
Calama finished investigating a specific piece: the one that affects the Madrid municipalities of Chinchón, Collado Villalba, Getafe, Velilla de San Antonio, Meco, Móstoles and Torrejón de Ardoz. Likewise, it agreed to the cessation of operations related to the Arganda del Rey Town Hall.
“ACCURATE AND CORRECT”
The Chamber points out that the judge’s order is not invalid, as it states in writing that the investigations carried out provide evidence of possible criminal commission or involvement of those investigated. “And if at least there are indications of criminal offenses (…) the contested decision is correct and correct,” adds the court.
Concerning the argument of some applicants that their conduct was in no way criminal and that it did not correspond to any of the types provided for in the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court’s Judiciary Chamber concludes that “if there is a plausible indictment, the conclusion of the investigation phase and the possibility of holding the main hearing.
Referring to the appeal of one of the defendants, Juan José Mora Cuadrado, who claimed that the events prior to 2012 were prescriptive and therefore there was no continuing criminality, the court notes that in his particular case the prescription “cannot be considered at all evident “. .
CHINCHÓN, MECO, GETAFE OR TORREJÓN
In this particular piece, the judge proposes trying the current mayor of Chinchón, independent mayor Francisco Javier Martínez, and his predecessor, María Luisa Fernández, mayor of Velilla de San Antonio, socialist Antonia Alcázar, among others. or the Finance Advisor of the Meco City Council, Luis Miguel Gómez Garda.
The magistrate is also targeting the head of the executive collection department of the Getafe City Council, Juan Garda, the head of the tax administration body of the same consistory, Emilio Fernández Agüero, the director general of tax administration and collection of the City of Móstoles Council, Isabel Apellániz, or the auditor of the City Council of Torrejon, Lucia Mora.
He considers the existence of a mechanism for circumventing legal controls in the awarding of tenders and public contracts in the municipalities mentioned to be proven.
In its March decision, for example, it pointed out that investigators from Efial – which was renamed Innovative Management Consulting SL (CGI) – had taken on typical civil servant duties, including illegally participating in appeal competition proceedings, by acting as advisors to the mayor proposed and reckoning for the preparation of the basics of the competitions.
THE MODE OPERANDI
In the order, Judge Calama explains the modus operandi, which in many cases consisted of the formation of public municipal companies, in which Efial established or managed a public business entity that appeared to have no executive powers and facilitated the circumvention of administrative scrutiny.
In this context, “the degree of subjection to public procurement has also been relaxed, whereby the position of manager in the above-mentioned company” is “also the same manager of the public company”.
Thus, and in relation to public procurement, the judge explains that there has been “an orientation of public contracts contrary to the principles of competition and competition, leading to them being awarded to a company that is unlikely to offer the more economical conditions or technically advantageous for public administration”.
Therefore, and in the case of the award of the contract, the administration suffered a loss of assets, since the contract was not awarded to the company most suitable for carrying out the work offered, but to the company determined by the will of the interveners .
PENALTY OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTION
The facts, as explained by Calama, fit a crime of administrative subterfuge, while investigators divided the contracts in order to reduce their amount and not to exceed 18,000 euros, in order not to exceed the limit of the petty contract.
“A lower price was always agreed than for a small order; the order amount was divided to match the quantity limit of the small order; the principles of publicity and free competition, which are mandatory for management contracts, were dispensed with,” explains the magistrate.
Thus, the judge stated that the services were always granted to the same selected professionals, which violates the principles of publicity, competition, transparency and equality. “That is to say, the decision in favor of CGI was made in basically all cases expressed in the bill of criminal acts by direct contracting, generally through fictitious division of services with an irregular fractionation in their billing,” he adds .
And all this, he concluded, “with the aim of handling them as small orders, so that the invoices were always less than 18,000 euros, which at the same time avoids the advertising requirements of the corresponding award procedure”.