Thursday, December 2

From M. Rajoy to the headquarters of La Rioja and Pontevedra: what has not been proven in the Bárcenas case

The sentence in the Bárcenas case has been able to accredit two of the notes attributed to the box B of the PP, the payment in black of the reform of its headquarters and the purchase of shares of Libertad Digital; however others have not been corroborated.

That is the case of controversial point in the name of M. Rajoy or those of the alleged payments in B destined for the headquarters of the PP in La Rioja and Pontevedra.

The sentence warns that “inconsistencies and errors” of the “Bárcenas papers, and “the lack of explanation or contradictory or illogical explanation of the defendant Mr. Bárcenas to some of the notes and balances for which he has been questioned, prevents giving full validity to all such documents and to his testimony, even if recognized the facts for which the Public Prosecutor’s Office accuses him “.

This is what happens “in the explanations given about the annotations of 2008, sheets 14 and 15, specifically about why the name of M. Rajoy appears in one and not in another, in addition to not matching the balance sheet “, observe the magistrates of the second section of the Criminal Court of the Court José Antonio Mora, Fernando Andreu and María Fernanda García.

They recall that in the trial he declared that he made it for the then party treasurer, the late Álvaro Lapuerta, “as a form of pressure to thatRajoy)“while in instruction he passed it to clean.

Headquarters of La Rioja

For the court This is “a sample of the different explanations and ways of acting of the accused, which forces us to assess their testimony with caution. and admit it to the extent that it is corroborated with other evidence. ”

For this, it has relied on the documentation collected in the case and on the reports prepared by the UDEF and the IGAE, which contain “the correlations or correspondences found between the papers and the official accounting or other events that have occurred in reality and are totally coincident “.

Object of this analysis, the magistrates have also ruled out that the payment for the headquarters in La Rioja had been made “in part with money B from those cash funds managed by Mr. Bárcenas, “says the judgment, which also discards” the payment in B of the Pontevedra embargo because there is no corroboration of such fact. ”

In the papers of Bárcenas an income of 200,000 euros appears on May 26, 2008 with the concept La Rioja and in the official accounting there is a transfer for that amount as aid or subsidy registered at the regional headquarters on June 23, 2008, the ruling indicates.

Bárcenas declared that this amount was donations for the headquarters in La Rioja, and that in order to be able to use it in the purchase of the new headquarters, cash was entered into the official donation account and from there it was transferred to the regional headquarters.

The Chamber has verified the official accounting at both venues, regional and central, of the transfer made from this as a subsidy, “being normal the existence of transfers between venues, with a annotation on the papers of having received money B from La Rioja, on a date that is also close but not coincident, as is the case in other notes regarding other operations “.

As for the Pontevedra embargo, the ruling indicates that only one charge has been recorded in the national accounts for the amount of 187,569.83 euros, but there is no entry of funds in accounting B as a return from the Pontevedra headquarters, “only the statement from Bárcenas who said he had received 50,000 euros.”

For this reason, it concludes that it cannot be said either that the payment for the La Rioja headquarters and the Pontevedra embargo had been made in part with black money.

What has been proven is the payment in B of part of the reform works of the headquarters of the PP in Madrid’s calle de Génova.

According to the ruling, of the total amount of the cost of executing the reform work of the PP headquarters -more than 5 million euros-, it can only be considered proven that the amount of 184,000 euros in 2006 and 888,000 euros was paid in B in 2008, a total of 1,072,000 euros.

Digital Freedom

It has also considered proven the operation related to the subscription of shares in the capital increase by Libertad Digital with funds from box B.

Specifically, that Bárcenas delivered cash funds from box B to Lapuerta for the acquisition of Libertad Digital shares on October 29, 2004 for 139,700 euros, which he put in his name and declared in his wealth tax and that of his wife, and that on March 20, 2007 he sold them to Libertad Digital for treasury stock for an amount of 209,550 euros, that he did not reinstate the Popular Party.

The sentence also refers to the fourteen movements in which the UDEF observed correlation in terms of dates and amount between the outflows of cash B and entries in anonymous donation accounts.

This, the magistrates explain, “corroborates the reality of the donations reflected there, without, however, entering into their origin and purpose because this subject is sub iudice, still under investigation”, in the Central Court of Instruction 5 of the National Court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *