Masks Case: "I recommended terminating the contract, refusing the second payment"

The complaint is instructed in the Court of Instruction number 7. Archive image of the City of Justice. / arcadio suarez

The head of the Contracting and General Affairs Service of the SCS was forceful in her statement before the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor

The head of the Contracting and General Affairs Service of the Canarian Health Service declared on May 3 before the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor of Las Palmas, Javier Ródenas, that both she and another head of service recommended to the then
General Director of Economic Resources, Ana María Pérezwhich did not pay the two million euros of the second payment committed to the company RR7 United SL for the purchase of one million sanitary masks.

In that appearance,
the hiring manager He explained that after the first payment of two million euros and once a month had passed without the masks appearing, Ana María Pérez gathered them to find out their opinion on a second transfer. In that meeting, the two heads of service recommended the resolution of the contract and start
«the procedure for the payment of the two million euros paid».

The person in charge of Procurement based her opinion on the fact that RR7 was an unknown company in the field of the Canarian health sector, that the month of the term that the law stipulates for the delivery of the goods had elapsed and added another argument: «The market of masks had stabilized and masks could be obtained through other suppliers and with the most adjusted market price, instead of paying another two million euros for nothing ».

Payment in advance

Despite these warnings, Ana María Pérez ended up formalizing the payment of the other two million to RR7. The masks were never delivered, since the only consignment that arrived was retained by Customs at the airport upon detecting that they were counterfeit and RR7, feeling themselves cheated by the intermediaries in the operation, ordered their destruction and even paid for it. that operation.

In his complaint,
admitted for processing and already in the preliminary investigation phase by the Court of Instruction number 7 of the capital of Gran Canaria, the Prosecutor's Office emphasizes precisely that second payment of 2 million despite the warnings of internal organs of the Canary Islands Health Service, as well as the fact that, once the contract was terminated , was 'reactivated' with a proposal to deliver 1.2 million euros of masks, but of a different model and with a price that was still much higher than the market price and that of other offers that the health administration had.

The Government of the Canary Islands appears in the Masks case

For all this,
the Prosecutor's Office appreciates evidence of four crimes: administrative prevarication and influence peddling in the case of Conrado Domínguez, director of the Canarian Health Service, and Ana María Pérez; and aggravated fraud and money laundering.

Despite being the head of the SCS Recruitment Service, she declared before the prosecutor Ródenas that her department "did not carry" the RR7 contract: "The body that processed it was directly Ana María Pérez."

He also explained that, after that meeting with the director general,
googled information about RR7, "discovering that its corporate purpose was the sale of agricultural machinery and was not related to the health sector." Thus, she added, she transferred it to Ana María Pérez.

In the complaint, the prosecutor requests the statement in court as witnesses of the two heads of service, a request that the investigating judge has endorsed.

It was the plenary session of the Audiencia who agreed to transfer it to the Court of Accounts

In a letter signed by Pedro Pacheco, president of the Audiencia de Cuentas, and sent to the UDEF of the Judicial Police, he states that the plenary session of the autonomous auditing body, which agreed to communicate to the Court of Auditors the "indications of accounting responsibility" detected in the case of the contract with RR7. This notification to Madrid led to proceedings opened by the Court of Auditors and pending resolution. This week the plenary session of the Court agreed not to approve the pre-report, which maintained that there were these indications of accounting responsibility. The draft opinion will not go to Parliament for now.

Source link