The Madrid Prosecutor’s Office has filed a complaint against the promoter of the beehive flats in the capital and Pozuelo de Alarcón for a continuing crime of fraud, requesting the judge to take a statement from him as an investigated, tax sources have reported.
An empty premises and a ghost company: what is behind Barcelona’s beehive apartment offer
This promoter already had legal problems for a similar initiative in Barcelona. The mayor of the city herself spoke about the controversy: “This is illegal, fortunately. We ask that it not be frivolous, we must protect the right to housing.” Then, the Barcelona City Council made the initiative known to the Mossos d’Esquadra for possible fraud, after revealing El Periódico that in its posters hanging in the street they asked for 25 euros for an alleged “registration”.
The facts refer to a letter presented by a councilor of the Socialist Group at the Madrid City Council in which she stated that the company Haibu 4.0 Colmenas SL had launched its beehive flats business without any authorization both in the capital and in the locality. from Pozuelo de Alarcón which, in his opinion, breached all habitability standards.
The socialist mayor indicated in her letter to the Prosecutor’s Office that these beehive flats supposed “the commercialization of rooms for rent, with measures 1.2 meters high by 2.2 meters long, for prices ranging between 175 and 275 euros per month, for which, in addition, a deposit of 300 euros would have to be paid at the time of formalizing a reservation “.
According to the councilor, these homes would not comply with all the habitability conditions, both of the Technical Building Code, as well as the Urban Regulations of the General Urban Planning Plan of Madrid, in relation to the established legal measures, as well as the lighting and ventilation conditions natural on every surface of the house.
The procedures carried out by the Unit Attached to the Superior Prosecutor’s Office of Madrid of the Provincial Brigade of Judicial Police verified that the company Haibu 4.0 is registered in the Central Mercantile Registry with the name Haibu 4.0 Colmenas SL, appearing as the sole administrator EJS
However, among the documentation that accompanies the complaint, an email from the Haibu communication department was observed in which different web links and two contact telephone numbers can be seen.
Regarding the first, it was found that the mobile line was titled by MOC, with Barcelona address “who has made many appearances in the media as promoter or manager of Haibu 4.0”.
No municipal license
In addition, through the analysis of Haibu 4.0’s Twitter profile, everything related to its business model was published. For example, it was reported about the beehive floors that have a license, those that are in the process of having it, as well as those that were directly started without the appropriate municipal license.
Links were even published to television programs “where they talk about the project or interview the promoter of the company, MOC.” The investigations show that the visible face in the media was MOC, who also advertised its business model through social networks (Facebook, Instagram) and digital video-sharing platforms (YouTube).
Thanks to this information, it has been possible to determine the location of seven of the sites in which, according to the defendant himself, “beehive” homes have been or are soon to be opened. However, assigned officials traveled to these places in order to verify their existence, “confirming in all cases that they have not been built, nor are there any indications that any activity will be started there.” It was even found that none of these lands belonged to the defendant.
It was also investigated whether the Haibu company had requested, as stated by MOC, licenses for the opening and operation of its beehive flats.
Thus, the municipalities of Madrid and Pozuelo indicated that their databases did not contain license applications on behalf of the Haibu 4.0 company.
The one from Pozuelo, in turn, reported that, if requested, “it would be denied due to non-compliance with urban regulations.” Despite this, several people have been located who have paid various amounts of money “believing that, indeed, this type of property was being built.”