Wednesday, December 2

IU’s electoral administrator says he did not supervise the contract with Neurona

An image of Pablo Iglesias.

An image of Pablo Iglesias.

Carlos Garcia Ramos, joint administrator of the United We Can coalition in the April 2019 elections, has stated that he did not supervise the contract between Podemos and Neurona Investigating a Madrid court, since he trusted his counterpart designated by the purple formation and each authorized some contracts.

Carlos García Ramos has declared this Friday as being investigated before the head of the Court of Instruction 42 of Madrid, which investigates possible irregularities in the payments made by Podemos to the Neurona company. Next Friday he will declare as accused Daniel de Frutos, head of finance for Podemos and second joint administrator for those elections.

Elías Castejón Hernández, administrator of Neurona Comunidad SL, has also declared as investigated this Friday, while the architect Manuel Campos García has done it as a witness.

They have not finally declared, as was initially planned, nor Eduardo Lopez Hernandez, who appears in the contract of Neurona Comunidad SL as the contact person of the service provider, nor Pablo Manuel Fernández Alarcón, former manager of Neurona. The first, cited as investigated, has alleged a problem to go to court and the second, a witness, had been incorrectly cited.

Carlos García Ramos explained that he did not review the contract with Neurona until October or November 2019, when both administrators joined the information to pass it on to the Court of Accounts, because he trusted his counterpart and each one signed contracts, since otherwise they did not it would be operational, legal sources have detailed at the end of the statements this Friday.

The lawyer of Podemos, Gorka Vellé, has explained to the press that Carlos García Ramos and Daniel de Frutos were joint administrators and “the contracts were not validated one to the other; it was not that the contracts had to go through one of the two members of the coalition: each had its suppliers. ”

“In what did exist a commonwealth, it was in relation to excess spending: there was a spending cap in the campaign and therefore only for the purpose of spending control, and not for controlling the reality of the contracts, there was that provision and that mutual collaboration “, he has detailed.

Regarding the statement of the Neurona administrator, Elijah Castejon, the lawyer of Podemos has stressed that “he has provided documents that indeed the services were being provided by the Neurona entity” in accordance with the regulations.

For Vellé, the statement this Friday has been “very satisfactory” because “after a few months of rumors and unfounded accusations, today it is beginning to be verified that there is no basis for any of them.

The lawyer has stressed that, according to what was declared today and contrary to what the ex-lawyer of Podemos Mónica Carmona assured in her testimony as a witness on the 28th, “nobody from IU, absolutely nobody, not only is it not that there is no contributed no document of any irregularity, is that they did not know Mónica Carmona “.

At this point, he stressed that Carmona was responsible for the party’s regulatory compliance and, to questions from the defenders, he replied that he had not detected signs of irregular financing, while Podemos has provided the court 1,400 documents that show Neurona did the work for the party that were paid.

For her part, the lawyer Marta Castro, which represents Vox as a popular accusation in the process, has explained that today’s hearing has been limited to statements and “there has been a lot of data that will have to be analyzed in detail”, so that it foresees that the magistrate will have to request more proceedings .

Regarding the statement by Carlos García Ramos, he specified that “it is a piece of a puzzle and we will have to continue investigating.”

In today’s view the architect Manuel Campos Garcia has specified that in the works of the Podemos headquarters the initial or basic budget was exceeded, as is often the case, but the money was used to pay for the work, and has shown a report with details of the accounts, legal sources have reported.

style="display:block" data-ad-client="ca-pub-3066188993566428" data-ad-slot="4073357244" data-ad-format="auto" data-full-width-responsive="true">
style="display:block" data-ad-client="ca-pub-3066188993566428" data-ad-slot="4073357244" data-ad-format="auto" data-full-width-responsive="true">

Leave a Reply

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