The deputy of Junts per Catalunya Francesc de Dalmases has saved the first match point in the face of his imputation in the case of diversion of subsidies from the Barcelona Provincial Council to entities related to Convergència. The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC), competent body for graduates, has rejected the petition to accuse him that Judge Joaquín Aguirre raised before the “lack of specification and individualization” of the alleged criminal conduct carried out by De Dalmases. The instructor had come to describe the deputy’s behavior as “offensive”.
The TSJC’s resolution represents a setback for Judge Aguirre, who has been in charge of an investigation with dozens of defendants for five years. And it confirms the disagreement between the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the magistrate, who already appeared in the alleged Russian plot of the process that the judge himself is investigating. Anti-corruption had asked the judges of the TSJC to return to Magistrate Aguirre the rationale on De Dalmases because, in the opinion of the prosecutor, the instructor “did not expose either the subsidies or the persons responsible for the alleged fraud.”
The Civil and Criminal Chamber of the TSJC shares the criteria of the prosecutor Fernando Maldonado and considers that Judge Aguirre’s investigation is still in an “embryonic” stage, and that his reasoned statement does not attribute in a sufficiently precise way what behaviors of the now deputy deserve him the imputation for crimes of embezzlement in competition with influence peddling and prevarication.
According to the magistrates of the TSJC, in the reasoned statement raised by Judge Aguirre to claim the accusation of De Dalmases there is “no reference or specification” on the alleged crime of prevarication. Nor are “concrete indications” described about the alleged influence peddling, add the robes. And on the embezzlement, they add, “the specific activity” of De Dalmases is not individualized either in each of the subsidies that the judge sees as irregular.
Moreover, the magistrates ugly the investigating judge that in order to individualize De Dalmases’ behaviors they must “dive into the vast documentation” that he attached in his brief, while at the same time they reproach him for having used the verb tense of “impersonal reflective (he presented himself. .., it was granted …, they were used) “in the rationale. “There is not a sufficiently individualized imputation of the crime, nor that the necessary procedures have been carried out to verify the facts that are collected in the police investigations,” the TSJC rivets in another dart to the investigating judge.
The Chamber decides that the judge must complete the investigation before resubmitting a rationale. For this reason, it also orders the magistrate to give De Dalmases the opportunity to testify voluntarily and to carry out “all the necessary investigation procedures.” “And if in their day there were individualized indications against the grading, a new reasoned exposition should be raised,” they add.