The Court of Accounts has opened a sanctioning file against Vox for irregular financing, according to sources from the supervisory body of public administrations and political parties. The agreement to initiate the file warns that the ultra formation has been able to commit two very serious continuous infractions by accepting “thousands of finalist donations” prohibited by the Organic Law of Financing of Political Parties of 2007, for which it proposes sanctioning it with two fines for a total amount of 233,324.22 euros.
The agreement to initiate the file explains that on April 17, 2019, Vox opened a collection through its website to raise the 15,000 euros that the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia demanded to file a complaint against the former president of the Generalitat of Catalonia Quim Torra. . The group boasted of having raised the amount they needed in just four hours and recorded the income of 31,664.80 euros in their accounting.
On July 15, 2019, Vox launched a new campaign crowdfunding with the motto #AyudemosABorja to pay the bail of the young man from Malaga sentenced to two years in prison for the death of a thief whom he chased and hit when he was fleeing after stealing a woman's purse in Fuengirola (Málaga). With this second initiative, Vox raised another 120,482.93 euros from 5,770 donors.
On its website, Vox forces donors to check a box ensuring that they have read and understood article 4 of the Party Financing Law, which expressly states that donations to political formations will be “non-finalist” and will have “irrevocable character.” ”. However, the Court of Auditors considers that this warning does not whitewash manifestly irregular donations.
In the period of allegations, prior to the opening of the sanctioning file, Vox already argued that the law does not prohibit all finalist donations, but only those in which the purpose is set by the donor, which can thus condition the activity of the political party. On the other hand, according to Vox, when it is the party that sets in advance the purpose of the donations, it is not conditioned by those who make them.
What affects the most is what happens closest. So you don't miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe
On the contrary, the Court of Auditors warns that the law prohibits finalist donations in several of its sections and not only to prevent the donor from imposing obligations on political formations, but also because finalist donations, when their objective is frustrated, They must be returned, and revocable donations to parties are prohibited. “If it is the donee who establishes the purpose, the donation would be prohibited as it is revocable. […]; and if it is established by the training, it is prohibited when being a finalist,” the report states.
Vox also alleged that, in the case of the bail of the young man from Malaga, the party was not the recipient of the donation, but rather the convicted person, while the ultra formation was limited to acting “as a mere intermediary, as a manager of another's business, without at any time making his own, as property, the amounts donated, which belonged to Borja, as the authentic and sole donee.”
The Court of Auditors has dismantled this argument by pointing out that the income was made into the account that Vox has reserved for donations and that these benefited from the tax advantages provided for contributions to political parties. Specifically, Vox did not pay the corporate tax, which it would have had to pay if it acted as “manager of another's business”; and, in addition, he informed the tax agency that these were donations to the party, so the donors could deduct them from the personal income tax base, which they would not have been able to do if they were donations to Borja. The law, the report concludes, “does not allow political parties to act as intermediaries or channelers of donations” to third parties.
The supervisory body has accepted one of Vox's allegations: that donations made by third parties must be differentiated from those made by its affiliates. The report explains that the income made by party members is considered contributions, while those made by outside donors are donations. The former are not subject to the strict limits and requirements of the latter due to what the court itself qualifies as “deficient legislative technique”, since “there is no provision that prohibits the acceptance of finalist contributions and, consequently, these income do not constitute an infringement.” some”.
Global amount
Consequently, the report subtracts from the global amount those contributions that, according to Vox's certificate, were made to the two collections by its own affiliates. Thus, Quim Torra's campaign goes from 31,664 to 10,563 euros and Borja's, from 120,482 to 91,662: which gives a total of 102,225.
However, the fine that can be imposed on Vox, according to the report, more than doubles this amount. And this is because the ultra formation would have committed “thousands of very serious infractions” against the party financing law, by accepting a multitude of finalist donations, as “part of a preconceived plan.” All of them, according to the report, would be grouped into two very serious continuous infractions: the one that affected Torra, sanctioned with 50,000 euros, which is the minimum amount provided for by law; and Borja's, punished with 183,324.22. In total, 233,324.22 euros.
However, Vox has the possibility of substantially reducing the amount of the sanction. As with traffic fines, you can save 20% if you acknowledge your responsibility and waive appeal and an additional 20% by voluntary payment within the allegations period.
The agreement of the Court of Accounts has had the dissenting vote of counselor Isabel Fernández Torres, professor of Commercial Law at the Complutense University of Madrid, who has opposed including in the file the collection for Borja's bail, alleging that there was no asset enrichment by Vox.
The judge sees no crime in the riot on the Tenerife list
Santa Cruz de Tenerife is the only province where Vox did not appear in the general elections on July 23, despite the fact that in November 2019 it obtained a deputy there. Hours before the deadline for submitting the lists closed, one of the three Vox members and the three substitutes resigned, so the candidacy declined as the minimum number of candidates was not reached. The ultra party attributed it to an internal conspiracy and sought a scapegoat, so they filed a complaint against Débora Rodríguez, the person in charge of presenting the documentation to the Provincial Electoral Board, and against the former provincial president Manuel Molina Cordón, who was one of the resignations, publicly pointing out both. Now, the Investigative Court number 5 of Santa Cruz has filed the case considering that there was no crime, “since the candidates are free to resign or not”, and those accused were not at fault. The rebellion was the result of the unrest of the local Vox militants faced with the imposition from Madrid of a head of the list supposedly linked to the Opus whom they decided to leave composed and without a seat.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
#Court #Auditors #files #charges #Vox #irregular #financing #proposes #fining #euros