The clash between Judge Manuel García Castellón and the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office in the Punic case festers in the last section of the investigation. The prosecutors of the case have appealed the judge’s refusal to new requests for imputation in the room of box B of the PP in Madrid in a harsh letter in which they reproach García Castellón for urging them not to delay further the instruction at a time when the one that has just provided them access to voluminous documentation seized more than three years ago.
The judge accused the Prosecutor’s Office in a car of June 11 of taking an “oblique route” in the investigation and of favoring an unnecessary prolongation of the investigations through a “trickle in the request for proceedings spreading them over time, without no type of reasonable justification, when they can be interested in a concentrated way “.
Now, in a letter to which elDiario.es has had, the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office resorts to the Chamber through the judge and reminds him that “the right of all accused to be prosecuted within a reasonable period of time cannot become the right of all offender to be discovered and investigated promptly “, as established in a recent Supreme Court ruling that it cites.
In this sense, prosecutors María Teresa Gálvez, Carmen García Cerdá and Alejandro Cabaleiro point out that García Castellón ordered to transfer “information and evidence” obtained four years ago in entries and records of Operation Lezo – on corruption in the Isabel Canal II – which affects box B of the PP in Madrid and that delivery “has not yet materialized” completely. An “initial reading” of the first materials received has allowed prosecutors to verify the “strength” of the evidence that led to open the piece of irregular financing of the Madrid PP, they add.
The line of investigation that has caused this latest confrontation between prosecutors and magistrates is the alleged financing of the regional PP through the public IT company ICM with the concert of Indra executives, in a plot that required several instrumental companies. Prosecutors consider that there are plenty of indications that invoices for non-existent jobs were inflated, as Indra itself has recognized in a Madrid court and the technicians of the Ministry of Finance point out in their reports incorporated into the case.
Consequently, Anticorruption requests the Criminal Chamber to oblige the judge to take a statement as investigated by two Indra executives for their participation in the authorization of the allegedly inflated invoices, Tomás Contreras and José Antonio Macho; also to Óscar Lorenzo Canales, former director of Public Administrations in the company and another manager, Francisco Javier Salorio; as well as those responsible for Lata Latina, the company suspected of acting as a bridge with the PP, Jaime Cantos Ruiz, Juan Carlos Jañez Ramos and Marta Amezarri Galán; and that two directors of the public ICM be called as witnesses. In this piece 9 Esperanza Aguirre herself is imputed.
Prosecutors consider “a contradiction” for the judge to deliver the material that would affect the newly investigated and that at the same time the judge refuses to summon them. They also show “perplexity” at the fact that they consider their thesis of the inflated invoices plot not sufficiently substantiated when it supported the instructor’s files in the years 2014, 2016 and 2019.
The intricacies of prosecutors, according to the judge
The judge had opposed all this in the first instance because he considered those proceedings as a result of the documentation that the prosecutors have since 2017, because they only justify the imputation of the charges that all of them held in the different companies and claiming that they can always testify in phase oral trial. In addition, in the order of June 11, García-Castellón stated that there are no indications of inflated billing, only that Indra provided the same service to two different administrations, Community and Central Government, and much less that public funds were destined to “Companies around the Popular Party”.
“It is found that the summons of the investigated is unnecessary and useless, in the mean in which it is based on some assumptions that have already been discarded by this instructor and confirmed by the Criminal Chamber, being able to verify that the request attends, in essentially, a kind of oblique route to introduce facts that were left out of the procedure, “wrote the judge.
Indeed, the Criminal Chamber rejected last February some requested by the Prosecutor’s Office with a warning: “This court considers that after a very long investigation, which began more than 7 years ago, the proceedings that are concerned should not delay for more time the conclusion of what is called separate piece number 9. ”Anti-corruption complains that both the investigating judge and the higher instance of the Criminal Chamber mix dates and speak of a seven-year instruction, starting with the opening of the Punic cause, and the moment when piece 9 was opened on the irregular financing of PP in Madrid, which happened in 2017.