You are currently viewing The Government appeals the investigation of the Plus Ultra case: "There are no objective elements to suspect"

The Provincial Court of Madrid will review the decision of the Court of Instruction number 15 to initiate an investigation into the rescue of Plus Ultra Lineas Aereas with a aid of 53 million euros from the fund to support the solvency of strategic companies. “No objective element allows to found a suspicion” of embezzlement of public funds, affirms the State Attorney in a forceful appeal known by EL ESPAÑOL.

The defender of the legal interests of the Government has not walked around the bush: she has appealed directly to the higher body to Judge Esperanza Collazo, without previously resorting to reform before the instructor herself.

The appeal has been filed on behalf of Bartolomé Lora, vice president of the State Society of Industrial Participations and who served as acting president of the body until the appointment of Belén Gualda on March 30. Collazo has directed the investigation against Lora and, in a generic and unnamed way, against “the rest of the members of the board of directors” of SEPI.

That is precisely one of the main reproaches of the State Bar to the action of the instructor, who “has not made an elementary query to the applicable rules, those that regulate the fund to help the solvency of strategic companies.”

This regulation attributes the competence to resolve requests to a management council, rather than a body other than SEPI’s board of directors. “It has nothing to do with the Council of SEPI” with the granting of aid from that fundstates the resource.

The fund management council It is made up of the president of SEPI (Lora, in the case of the aid to Plus Ultra) and four members: the Secretary of State for the Economy and Business Support, Ana de la Cueva; the Undersecretary of Finance, Pilar Paneque; the Secretary General for Industry, Raúl Blanco, and the Secretary of State for Energy, Sara Aagesen. All of them are also part of the board of directors of SEPI, which has a total of 15 members and the fund to support the solvency of strategic companies does not intervene in the granting of aid.

Management board of the fund to support the solvency of strategic companies. /

EE

The State Attorney’s Office asks the Madrid Court to revoke the decision of the examining judge to open proceedings on the aid granted to Plus Ultra.

“No hint”

In his opinion, the Court’s resolution is “null” for violating the right to the presumption of innocence, “by ordering a Prospective investigation without any criminal evidence being present or provided“.

According to the appeal, proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a “meager and inconsistent complaint” presented by Miguel Bernad, president of the Manos Limpias collective, in which “no indication of illegality” is provided.

The complaint is limited to listing a sequence of events published by the media (the granting of aid, the consideration of Plus Ultra as a strategic company “when it operates 0.03 of the flights in Spain”, which has a “single plane” and that “47% of the shareholders belong to Venezuelans with a wide network of companies in Panama”), data “in some cases false, more or less striking but in no case are indicative of any crime and without providing any information about the solvency aid fund, without which no analysis, not even indicative, can be made on the legality of the aid granted “.

There has been, he adds, a “sort of automatic opening of a criminal investigation by the mere filing of a complaint” that “sows the suspicion of illegality of the actions of Bartolomé Lora – as well as the SEPI Council – when no objective element allows found such a suspicion “.

The appeal recalls the doctrine of the Supreme Court according to which the opening of a criminal proceeding for the investigation of “merely suspicious facts” is not justified, in case they could constitute a crime, that is, a prospective investigation, without providing a objective indication of its reality of the complainant’s own knowledge. any citizen could be subjected to an investigation based on mere appearance“.

“Mere guesswork”

“With that admission of the complaint uncritically and unmotivated“, maintains the State Bar,” the obligation that weighs on the investigating body to carry out an indirect exercise of subsumption is not fulfilled. [de los hechos en algún presunto delito]. It is by means of this exercise that it should be prevented from submitting citizens to a criminal investigation for mere suspicions or conjectures, which is what is included in the complaint, an exercise that in this case has been completely omitted “.

In his opinion, the resolution to initiate the proceedings “has been issued without any indication that supports the suspicion of the criminal nature of the events denounced, thereby initiating a prospective investigation against Bartolomé Lora and the board of directors of SEPI, to those who are denounced
abstractly. The Investigating Court has begun the search for the evidence and not the investigation of incidental criminal acts“.

.

Disclaimer: If you need to update/edit/remove this news or article then please contact our support team Learn more