The president of Iberdrola, Ignacio Sánchez Galán, has gone on the attack this Thursday and has sent a letter to the magistrate instructing the Tandem case, Manuel García-Castellón, in which he points out that before indicting him relying on the statements of another defendant, the former director and former head of security of the José Antonio del Olmo group, the magistrate would have to have determined the validity of those indications. Del Olmo denounced the existence of irregular bills to pay for the espionage services supposedly commissioned from Commissioner José Manuel Villarejo and accused Sánchez Galán and his successor as head of security, Antonio Asensio, of knowing them. Given this, Sánchez Galán asks the judge to call the notary and former PP deputy Luis J. Ramallo to testify as witnesses, to whose notary Del Olmo took the report, and the people who joined him to sign that document, Marcos Peña and Ángel Zarabozo.
According to the letter, to accuse someone of an indication, its validity must be determined and an admitted complaint cannot be filed without practicing at least one diligence. In the opinion of Sánchez Galán’s lawyers, Del Olmo stole documentation and they allege that this was determined by an investigating judge in Madrid. They also maintain that he failed to fulfill his controller, since without his signature nothing could have been paid. The deposit made by Del Olmo and Marcos, who also signed, in the Luis J. Ramallo notary is illegal. The brief also indicates that Del Olmo is not the key witness in the case, because he is a co-investigator and no one can be charged based solely on the statement of an investigator.
This is the first letter of Galán’s defense after his indictment for having allegedly participated in the hiring of Commissioner Villarejo. The judge imputed to him, along with three other directors and former directors, a continuous crime of active bribery, crime against privacy and falsification in commercial document. In that order, the head of the Central Court of Instruction number 6, Manuel García-Castellón, supports that accusation in what was declared by Del Olmo and in the documents that, in December 2004 and up to two occasions, he brought before the notary Ramallo in order to record the apparent irregularity of the commissioner’s hiring.
In that sense, it indicates that what was deposited by Del Olmo and two other employees in 2004 in the notary’s office in a sealed envelope included various invoices stolen from the company, and recalls that, according to the notarial regulations, “the notary will reject any deposit that intends to constitute guarantee of an act or contract contrary to the laws, morals or good customs ”. It warns that the control of material legality by the notary implies the need for him to know the content of the deposited document, “having to deny his ministry in the event that the deposit is intended to constitute a guarantee of an act or contract contrary to the laws, to the moral or good manners ”.
Galán underlines his “determined will” to collaborate with the Justice and points out that “aware of his total alienation to the facts that are investigated here, he harbors the desire that these be fully clarified, which includes, of course, the clarification of everything that surrounded the preparation and notarial deposit of the document drawn up by Del Olmo ”.
The document recalls that the complaint for a possible falsity of the Del Olmo documentation was admitted in a Bilbao court, which ended up being inhibited in favor of García-Castellón, and that therefore if this possible falsehood that has served as the basis is under discussion for the attribution of the status of investigated to various people, including Galán, “it seems reasonable that the first thing to clarify is precisely the validity or falsehood of that.” “Only once the first is accredited, it will be legitimate to give the document the presumed probative or circumstantial efficacy. One could speak of the presence of a kind of homogeneous prejudice. But, without going into technicalities, it is true that the existing procedural context demands the establishment of a logical order in the progress of the investigations, with the future exposed ”, indicates the brief.
The defense of the president of Iberdrola warns that, given the incriminating radius of action of Del Olmo’s papers, which he ratified in court, “whose falsehood has been formally denounced”, it is necessary to verify their “purity”. In this sense, it is based on jurisprudence of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court and on article 11 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power (LOPJ) which, it adds, prohibits that data obtained in an illegal way can be used in a process.
On the other hand, the defense mentions the judge’s order by which it asked the Prosecutor’s Office to rule on how Iberdrola should appear in the case – it was learned yesterday that the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the imputation of Iberdrola Renovables -, and in which at At the same time, he wanted to know if the complaint filed by the electricity company against Del Olmo should be dismissed. Galán maintains that it is suspected that the reason for this possible dismissal would be the one provided for in article 641 of the Criminal Procedure Law, but points out that the full identification of the author of the document suspected of falsity “completely prevents the assessment of the concurrence of the cause of file established in section 2 of the precept ”.
After this, it recalls that in the present case the complaint filed against Del Olmo was admitted for processing by a Bilbao court, “because the facts narrated in it have the character of a crime.” And it adds that the decision to archive the case can only be adopted when the evidence procedures carried out “show objectively and clearly, without the need for subjective interpretations, the non-existence of the facts that are the object of the investigation, or the atypical nature of those that are being investigated. demonstrate existing ”.
In line with this, remember that the plausibility of what Del Olmo maintains in his document is based on a series of circumstances: billing between the commercial companies Casesa and Cenyt, a Villarejo company, alleged breach of Iberdrola’s internal rules on invoice processing Without request, lack of documentary support for the services referred to in the notarially deposited invoices. It points out that these circumstances by themselves “do not allow clearing the allegation of falsehood made in the complaint, especially with regard to the involvement, in the alleged irregularities that the disputed document indicates, of the persons detailed therein.”
Galán recalls that Del Olmo, in December 2004, was responsible for the control of corporate functions and, therefore, his main task was to ensure that the invoices presented for payment were regular and correct and that, in their processing, the procedures established within the company. It focuses on the fact that Del Olmo “signs without hesitation all the invoices that he supposes irregular”, referring to the hiring of the Villarejo company and underlines that “without their validation, they could never have been paid”.
In addition, it warns that Del Olmo, far from formalizing a complaint before the competent authorities, or, at the very least, a complaint through the corporate channels expressly provided for this purpose, “prepares an apparently official document” with Iberdrola letterhead that is deposited in a notary. And there their suspicions would have remained, sine die, if it had not been for the initiation of this proceeding “, he indicates, to later note that Del Olmo is not a witness but a co-investigated” who provides an alleged testimony of reference. “
For this reason, it indicates that it is “a suspicious test, which arouses an intrinsic distrust”, for which an additional evidentiary is demanded consisting of the need for a corroboration, even minimal, of it.