The National Court confirms the filing of the 'Villarejo case' for Repsol, Caixabank, Brufau and Fainé

He maintains that both companies had an adequate crime prevention system, and adds that "no model is infallible"

MADRID, 31 Ene. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Criminal Chamber of the National Court has confirmed the decision of investigating judge Manuel García Castellón to archive the investigation against Repsol and Caixabank, and against the president of the first, Antonio Brufau, and the former president of the second, Isidro Fainé, for the work carried out by the retired commissioner José Manuel Villarejo for both companies.

In the order of the Third Section, collected by Europa Press, the magistrates reject the appeal filed by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor against the dismissal agreed by the instructor in June 2022 within the framework of piece 21 of 'Tandem'. And it agrees that the proceedings continue against the former Repsol Security officials --Rafael Araujo-- and Caixabank --Miguel Ángel Fernández Rancaño--, as well as against Villarejo, his partner Rafael Redondo, the retired policeman Enrique García Castaño and the Deputy Director of Support Services of the Corporate Security Department of Repsol Rafael Girona.

In 29 pages, the Chamber recalls that the Prosecutor's Office challenged the resolution alleging that there were "rational indications" that the hiring of CENYT -the Villarejo business group- by Repsol executives, with the intention of defending the interest of the company and in order to carry out an investigation into the agreement reached by Sacyr and Pemex in August 2011 to syndicate their shares in the oil company, "it was knowing that the defendant Villarejo directed said entity while he was in active service in the National Police Corps and taking advantage of that circumstance".

Prosecutors understood that the oil company did not have a crime prevention model that complied with legal requirements at that time either. In addition, the tax team considered that there was a breach of internal regulations for the contracting of suppliers.

But the Chamber paraphrases the instructor by saying that, when CENYT was hired, Repsol had a crime prevention model "that met the established requirements." And he adds that "no model is infallible, and if a crime is committed (...) it does not necessarily imply that the crime prevention model adopted by the legal person is inadequate, violates current regulations or fails".

"Repsol's crime prevention model was adequate to current legislation, although the risk of the crime occurring could not have been avoided in this case," he adds.

Regarding the contracting of the supplier Villarejo, the court includes the different explanations given by testimonies in the investigation, which pointed out that the company assumed that the commissioner was no longer working as a police officer, to assert that these reasonings "are consistent" with the analysis of the documentation found in the homes of Redondo and Villarejo.

Added to this is the fact that the contracting operation "was not centralized" only in the person of Araujo or in Repsol's Corporate Security Directorate, "but rather, before paying the invoices, they passed through the economic-administrative area without detecting any irregularity".

"None of the departments through which the invoices passed until their payment appreciated any irregularity," he says, later adding that it is unlikely that there was collusion between all of them and, furthermore, "it has not been evidenced in any way."

As in the case of Repsol, regarding Caixabank, the Chamber notes that "at the time of contracting with CENYT it had a crime prevention model that met the requirements" provided for in the law.

The court echoes what was declared by the legal representative of the entity, who asserted that the hiring of CENYT "was not an idea that Caixabank had" but rather that it came from Fernández Rancaño after learning that Repsol "had contracted an external entity to to investigate the union agreement", and it seemed convenient to join the oil company's initiative since it was also affected by Sacyr's movement by having a significant shareholding of the oil company.

He also recalls that Fernández Rancaño had the capacity to make this contract "because the matter was within his competence, he had a budget for it and Caixabank had sufficient information from the provider to verify that it existed."

"The conclusion we draw from these statements is that nothing would have changed if the contracting committee and the Legal Department had intervened, given the specific characteristics of the contract and the circumstances, it would have been equally authorized and its controls would not have served to detect that CENYT was managed by José Manuel Villarejo", says the court.

Regarding the CENYT invoices against Caixabank, the Chamber recalls that they went through the corresponding departments of the entity, were recorded and paid. And he adds that the confidential and reserved nature of the assignment "justified that it was not expressly stated."

On the request of the Prosecutor's Office to review the file of the case for Brufau, on the understanding that he learned of the order made to CENYT through the investigated Luis Suárez de Lezo, and that he appreciated the advisability of Caixabank and Repsol joining their efforts in the sphere of corporate intelligence in order to get the Sacyr-Pemex pact annulled, the Chamber indicates that the minutes of a requisitioned meeting at Redondo's house and in which Brufau's interest in the investigation was mentioned "does not show indications of criminality.

"There is nothing illegal in Repsol and Caixabank joining efforts to frustrate a plan that they consider detrimental to their corporate interests, as long as they act within the law. And when Rafael Araújo talks about the Cannes call, according to the aforementioned document, he could refer to Luis Suárez de Lezo and not to Antonio Brufau Niubó", determined the court.

It adds that "in short, there is no record that Luis Suárez de Lezo and Antonio Brufau knew that in the order made by Rafael Araújo to an external company to carry out an investigation on Luis del Rivero" and that Villarejo participated in it while he was in active. Therefore, he confirms the file for both managers.

On the other hand, regarding the request of the Prosecutor's Office not to file the case for Fainé and for the director Antonio Massanell, understanding that the investigation commissioned against Luis del Rivero "was a joint reaction promoted by the two presidents of the companies, Isidro Fainé and Antonio Brufau", the Chamber says that it must also reject it.

"We do not accept these grounds for appeal. Neither Isidro Fainé nor Antonio Massanell had any contact with CENYT and all the information that they received about the assignment made to this entity was through Miguel Fernández Rancaño," the Chamber states, to later add that He has denied "knowing Villarejo's status as an active public official" and that the information he received from CENYT had content on call traffic from Luis del Rivero --then president of Sacyr-- and people around him. "Therefore, he would not have been able to transmit information to them that he claimed to be unaware of," he asserts.

Regarding the appeal against his prosecution of Araujo, the Chamber, in a separate order, states that the different resolutions of the investigator describe the facts that are charged against him, qualify them legally and explain the evidence on which his charge is based. Therefore, it dismisses his file request.