Archived after five years the investigation into alleged donations from businessmen to the PP in exchange for awards

"There is no element that allows us to infer, even indicatively, that those events have occurred," says Pedraz

The judge of the National Court, Santiago Pedraz, has agreed to the provisional file of the piece known as 'finalist commissions' --derived from the Gürtel case--, in which the alleged donations from businessmen to the PP in exchange for the award were investigated of public works. The judge, after five years since the case was reopened, understands that the perpetration of the crimes that gave rise to the formation of this case is not duly justified.

The decision comes after Anticorruption requested the dismissal after receiving from the General Intervention of the State Administration (IGAE) a last report where no irregularities were detected in the award processes.

The case, known as the "finalist commissions", was initiated by judge Pablo Ruz in 2013, but he closed it two years later when he saw no criminal evidence other than the payment of the reform of the "popular" headquarters in Genoa with those extra-accountable funds --matter already judged--. However, what was revealed by the leader of the 'Gürtel', Francisco Correa, during the trial for the first period of the corrupt plot allowed it to be reactivated.

The former treasurer of the PP Luis Bárcenas, who until then had denied it, confessed in a letter sent to the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office that some of the donations made were seeking awards. In his statement on July 16, 2021 before Pedraz, he directly implicated all the PP Ministers of Development and Environment by stating that they dealt with businessmen who contributed to this alleged unofficial accounting. That of the former 'popular' treasurer was the last statement before Pedraz ended the investigation phase on July 29, 2021.

Now, Pedraz, and according to the Public Prosecutor's Office, indicates in his order that the file is proceeding --without accepting new documentary-- due to the result of "proceedings carried out" during the investigation and that they include both the statement of the investigated and witnesses, such as the documentary of public companies and companies and the consultation of matters of other judicial procedures.

He points out that "despite this intense investigation" --and "extended" because it began in 2013, archived in 2015 and reopened in 2017-- which led to the examination of the contracting files of all the companies, "there is no element that allows infer, even indicatively, that those events have occurred".

"There is no note, an email, a document, a recorded conversation, a testimonial statement... that provides any incriminating data; nor does it exist from the multiple reports from the UDEF or auditors from the Prosecutor's Office and IGAE," the judge asserted. .

Pedraz puts the focus "mainly" on the expert report of last November 4 of the General State Intervention (IGAE). In said document it was specified that "it does not find breaches of the applicable regulations in the adjudication of the contracting files" and "makes it impossible to establish a relationship between the payments or donations and the awarded contracts."

"THERE IS NO ARBITRARIITY OR IRREGULARITY" IN CONTRACTS

In addition, in the legal reasoning, the judge recalls that this part of the separate piece known as the 'Bárcenas papers' was reopened on February 28, 2017 due to the statements made by both the businessman Alfonso García Pozuelo and the leader of the plot. Gürtel Francisco Correa.

And that as a result of these testimonies, the practice of proceedings was requested to verify if certain annotations reflected in the so-called 'Bárcenas papers' or accounting 'b' of the PP constituted "the accounting documentary support of real transactions that would reflect the cash considerations obtained by the PP and certain people, in exchange for interceding or putting pressure to obtain certain awards of public works to the payers of such illegal commissions".

But he once again relies on the IGAE report to say that it does not show "the commission of the crimes that were being investigated." "In it, the form of contracting is analyzed, the possible incidents in the different files, but in none of them is any arbitrariness or irregularity concluded, and what they do not throw is any element that allows the connection of said contracts with the alleged donations of the so-called Bárcenas papers", he adds.

The judge points out in his resolution that these conclusions of the IGAE are also supported by the fact that the respective Contracting Committees in each and every one of the contracts were made up of public officials and that the Facultative Management or Technical Assistance in each contract ( and that they signed both the Modified Projects and the complementary Projects, such as the Certifications-Liquidations) was different from the rest of the contracts.

"In this way, what was agreed in the order dated March 23, 2015 (...) in which the provisional dismissal of the actions of those investigated under the provisions of articles 779 and 641 of the the LECrim", he concludes.

And it adds that "it is not possible to establish a link or relationship between the income from investigated donations and the award of public contracts to the presumed donors." "The provisional conclusion must be in this regard that of the absence, for the moment, of sufficient evidence to consider justified the commission of the crimes attributed to the different defendants," explains the magistrate, paraphrasing the 2015 decision.