The president of ACS Florentino Pérez has sent a letter to the judge of the National Court Manuel García-Castellón in which he asks him to impute Iberdrola for the commission that its subsidiary of Renovables would have made to the retired commissioner José Manuel Villarejo with the project ‘Wind’ considering that the latter “only serves as a transmission belt for the decisions made in the parent company.”
The president of Iberdrola accuses the judge of indicting him before verifying the validity of the evidence
Pérez’s lawyer responds with this letter, to which Europa Press has had access, to an order of June 25 where the head of the Central Court of Instruction Number 6 asks the Prosecutor’s Office to rule on the procedural situation that Iberdrola must display in this separate piece from the macrocause ‘Tándem’ (number 17) as a legal entity.
Pérez understands that “the procedural rights of Iberdrola SA and the Iberdrola Group are more effectively safeguarded with the call to the process in a condition of being investigated for a full exercise of their right of defense”, asking García-Castellón to transfer this position to the Public Ministry and that, where appropriate, is accepted by the instructor himself.
The also president of Real Madrid claims that “Iberdrola SA is the parent company that controls 100% of its subsidiary Iberdrola Renovables Energía SA, therefore it holds a position of guarantor over it”.
By way of example, it recalls that Bankia’s accusation at the time “automatically led to the criminal imputation of its parent Banco Financiero y de Ahorros Tenedora de Actions SAU, which carries out its financial activity indirectly through Bankia and that it was no longer than a stock holder. ”
In this sense, it emphasizes that “it is the Iberdrola Group that has been maintaining contractual relationships over time with Mr. Villarejo and the Cenyt Group (the business network of the retired police officer”). Thus, it states that “it is the Iberdrola Group that contracts through Iberdrola Renovables Energía, which only serves as a transmission belt for the decisions made at the parent company”.
Specifically, it refers to the ‘Wind’ project. The assignment to Villarejo, who was still active as a policeman at the time, would have been to investigate a Swiss company with which the Spanish power company allied itself to develop a series of projects in Romania and with which conflicts arose.
It also highlights that it is the then head of Security at Iberdrola, Antonio Asenjo, who would carry out the hiring, adding that “there are indications that the instructions for said hiring come from executives of Iberdrola SA – investigated in this case -” , which would allow them to be classified as “de facto administrators”, in accordance with the Penal Code in force until 2015, and as persons with “powers of organization and control”, according to the current wording.
However, it maintains that “there are (…) certain indications that could generate a possible criminal liability for Iberdrola SA”, from which in turn -warning- “negative” accessory consequences may be derived, “as the crime of bribery a crime for which it is allowed to demand criminal responsibility from legal persons “.
Pérez also pronounces on another of the issues in which García-Castellón asks the Prosecutor’s Office for an opinion, that is, about the possibility of filing the facts denounced by means of a complaint in an investigating court in Bilbao, currently included in this case, referred to to the former Director of Corporate Functions Control, José Antonio del Olmo, who reported irregularities as a result of another alleged assignment from Iberdrola to Villarejo: ‘Arrow’.
At this point, the president of ACS advocates shelving this matter, arguing that the events would be prescribed because they would have taken place in 2004 and the complaint was filed in 2020. According to his calculations, more than 16 years would have passed, when possible criminal liability expires at five.
Regarding the existence of a possible conflict of interest, “given the willingness shown by Iberdrola to act as an accusation against who could be one of the key witnesses to sustain the accusation”, Del Olmo, the brief defends that the alleged file would end this dilemma.
However, as an alternative to the file, García-Castellón points out to open another a separate piece “in the event that Iberdrola SA wanted to direct the proceedings against Mr. Del Olmo for his acting as a witness in this separate piece, and not for an alleged a crime of falsity that would have been prescribed for years “.
“It is a practical and effective remedy” that would allow “to simplify and streamline the procedure,” since “these facts are much less complex than those investigated in relation to Iberdrola’s contracts,” he reasoned. And it adds that “it would be to go against its own acts that now the same procedural representation opposes the creation of a separate piece with respect to facts that it has energetically fought that were related.”