Anti-corruption will have to change its accusation in 'Kitchen' for the embezzlement reform

The Prosecutor's Office foresees a trickle of reviews and even the collapse of cases due to changes in this crime

MADRID, 14 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office will have to adapt its indictment on 'Operation Kitchen', regarding the alleged espionage orchestrated by Jorge Fernández Díaz's Ministry of the Interior against former PP treasurer Luis Bárcenas to steal sensitive information, to the reform of the crime of embezzlement designed by PSOE and ERC, according to tax sources consulted by Europa Press.

The Anti-Corruption accusation in this separate piece number 7 of the 'Villarejo case' is practically done, waiting for the Central Investigating Court Number 6 to give access to the complete material of the investigation carried out during these years, a movement that the The Public Prosecutor's Office has been waiting for weeks.

However, sources from this Special Prosecutor's Office have advanced that, foreseeably, the accusation outlined will have to be changed to adjust it to the new configuration of the crime of embezzlement that the PSOE and ERC have raised, which means lowering the current penalties where it is observed that they do not there is a profit motive or where the criminal conduct consists of using the money for a purpose other than that intended.

In 'Kitchen' the accusations made by the popular accusations exercised by the PSOE and Podemos are already known, which respectively demand a sentence of 47 years and 41 years in prison for the former Minister of the Interior, whom the judicial investigation has located as the alleged 'brain' of 'Kitchen', an illegal operation in which his former Secretary of State Francisco Martínez, former DAO Eugenio Pino and commissioners such as José Manuel Villarejo also participated.

Other sources from the same Prosecutor's Office warn that this will not be the only case where the accusation made must be reviewed, if finally the text approved by the Cortes Generales is the one already known.

In addition, tax sources predict that the trickle of reviews will not be restricted solely to indictments, but that a succession of reviews of final convictions is also expected, pointing as an example to the dynamics generated by the entry into force of what is known as 'law of only yes is yes'.

The aforementioned sources observe a third point of impact of the embezzlement reform: prescription. And this because a drastic drop in penalties would also lead to a collapse in the expiration periods of the crimes.

The consequence, these sources explain, is that those cases where the investigations started when criminal responsibility was about to expire could have to be closed if this reduction in time leads to the conclusion that when they were opened it could no longer be prosecuted criminally.

However, at the same time they emphasize that this impact will be cushioned because it will only affect cases that have not been tried, so those who have at least one first sentence will be immune to this effect.

This consequence is derived from article 131 of the Penal Code, which links the amount of the penalties to the statute of limitations, so that "crimes prescribe at 20 years, when the maximum penalty indicated for the crime is imprisonment of 15 years or more "; and "at 15, when the maximum penalty established by law is disqualification for more than 10 years or imprisonment for more than 10 and less than 15 years."

The crimes will expire after 10 years, the precept continues, "when the maximum penalty indicated by law is imprisonment or disqualification for more than 5 years and that does not exceed 10"; and at 5 years for other criminal offences, "except minor offenses and offenses of libel and slander, which prescribe after one year."

It should be remembered that the embezzlement reform draws three different assumptions: when there is a profit motive, maintaining the current penalties (from 2 to 12 imprisonment and 6 to 20 disqualification); and two new types: one non-profit for "private use" (from 6 months to 3 years in prison and disqualification from 1 to 4 years) and another for when the embezzled goes to a purpose other than that intended (from 1 to 4 years in prison and 2 to 6 years of disqualification).