The president of Iberdrola, Ignacio Sánchez Galán, has sent a letter to the magistrate instructing the ‘Tandem’ case in which he states that before having taken the decision to impute him in piece 17 Relying on the claims of another defendant, the former director of the electricity company José Antonio del Olmo, the magistrate should have determined the validity of these indications, according to Europa Press.
The Villarejo scandal hits the old guard of the Ibex and already has more than thirty indicted executives
This is the first letter of Galán’s defense, and it comes after his indictment on June 23 for having allegedly participated in the hiring of commissioner José Manuel Villarejo. The judge accuses 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, supported that accusation in what was declared by Del Olmo, and in the documents that in December 2004, and on up to two occasions, he brought before a notary in Madrid in order to record the apparent irregularity of the hiring to the commissioner.
Now, Galán reiterates his “determined will” to collaborate with 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 “.
Remember that the complaint for a possible falsehood of Del Olmo’s documentation was admitted in a Bilbao court, which ended up being inhibited in favor of García-Castellón, and that therefore if this possible falsehood is under discussion “which has served as the basis 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 falsity of that one “.
“Only once the first is accredited, it will be legitimate to give the document the presumed evidential or circumstantial effectiveness. 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 advance of the investigations, with the evolution exposed “, they indicate.
The defense of the president of Iberdrola warns that given the incriminating radius of action of those papers of Del Olmo, which he ratified in court, “whose falsehood has been formally denounced” requires verifying their “purity”, and is based on jurisprudence of the Chamber Second of the Supreme Court and in 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.
Complaint against Del Olmo
On the other hand, the defense mentions the judge’s order asking the Prosecutor’s Office to rule on how it should appear in the Iberdrola case, yesterday it was known that the Public Ministry requested the imputation of Iberdrola Renovables, and in which at the same time he wanted to know if he should dismiss the complaint filed by the electricity company against Del Olmo.
Galán says that it is intuited that the reason for the possible dismissal would be the one provided for in article 641 of the LECrim, 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 established file cause in section 2 of the precept “.
“The expression ‘duly justified’, contained in article 641.1 of the LECrim, has been interpreted by jurisprudence as accreditation or evidence, which requires that, after preliminary proceedings have been initiated, the investigation procedures aimed at said accreditation have been carried out. Provisional dismissal proceeds when there is no proof or accreditation that the crime has been committed, “he says.
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 had the character of a crime.” And it adds that the decision to archive the case can only be taken 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 atypicality of those demonstrate existing “.
In line, he recalls that the plausibility of what Del Olmo maintains in his document is based on a series of circumstances: billing between the companies CASESA and CENYT – Villarejo’s company – alleged breach of Iberdrola’s internal rules on processing of invoices without order, lack of documentary support of the services referred to in the invoices deposited notarially.
It points out that those circumstances by themselves “do not allow clearing the allegation of falsehood made in the complaint, particularly 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.
And it focuses on Del Olmo “signing without hesitation all the invoices that he supposes irregular” –referring to the hiring of the Villarejo company– and stresses 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 that purpose-, “prepares an apparently official document” with Iberdrola letterhead that is deposited in a Notary.
“And their suspicions would have remained there, sine die, if it had not been for the initiation of this proceeding,” he indicates, and then warns that Del Olmo is not a witness but a co-investigator “who provides an alleged reference testimony.”
For this reason, using phrases from a Constitutional ruling, it indicates that it is “a suspicious evidence, which arouses intrinsic distrust”, for which an additional evidentiary is demanded consisting of the need for a corroboration, even minimal, of it.
Also against the notary
In addition, 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 seeks to constitute a guarantee of a 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 intends to constitute a guarantee of an act or contract contrary to the laws, to morals or good manners “.
For this reason, it indicates that it is not admissible to accept a document in deposit, as was done, without having previously examined the document whose deposit is intended, “which was precisely what happened here.”
Thus, in his writing, he takes the opportunity to interest the statement as a witness of both the notary, Luis J. Ramallo, and the people who joined Del Olmo to sign that document, Marcos Peña and Ángel Zarabozo.