A report from the Central Unit for Economic and Fiscal Crime (UDEF) of the National Police concludes that the co-founder of Podemos Juan Carlos Monedero issued a "false and ad hoc" invoice with the aim of "masking the real reason" why received 26,200 euros from the Mexican consulting firm Neurona Consulting SA. In the 41-page report, to which Europa Press has had access, the agents affirm that of the analyzed emails of the university professor, his consultancy work could not be accredited and that, therefore, the amount charged does not correspond to the concept manifested.
Both the UDEF, and the representation of Vox in the case, intended to access all Monedero emails since using the referenced account. Sources from Monedero's defense have shown elDiario.es their surprise at this statement in the report since, they say, it was the investigating judge himself, Juan José Escalonilla, who authorized the delivery of those four emails exclusively, at the request of the person under investigation. Given the appeal of the far-right party and the association of conservative jurists Prolege to the judge's decision, it was the superior judicial instance that endorsed the decision of the investigating magistrate.
As reported by Ep, this analysis by the UDEF comes after the head of the Investigating Court Number 42 of Madrid, in charge of the investigation of the 'Neurona case', deemed it pertinent to delimit the analysis of Monedero's emails and study only the messages exchanged with the consultant that gives name to the cause and that would justify the 26,200 euros that he charged.
Monedero is listed as being investigated in this proceeding for an invoice issued on December 30, 2018 for a value of $30,000 for '300 hours of face-to-face consulting Buenos Aires, Mexico and Colombia' for which on January 25, 2019 he received an income bank account of 26,200.31 euros from Neurona Consulting.
In the police report, sent to the judge on March 4, the investigators have stressed that "it has not been possible to verify the reality of the dates of the emails, nor the content of the attached files that appear in them."
As they have specified, the emails were provided in printed documentary support "and when access was requested to clarify the facts, Juan Carlos Monedero refused to do so." These 'emails' have the domain gmail.com and laneurona.me and go in a time frame that runs from December 29, 2018 -date on which the first email was sent- until January 13, 2019.
One of them reads the subject “INVOICE 2018” and it can be seen that it includes trips to Latin America, “these terms being the same as the concept of the 2018 invoice: '300 hours of face-to-face consulting, Buenos Aires, Colombia and Mexico' , document analyzed in previous reports”.
An invoice that “could not be suitable”
Within the framework of the analysis, the agents have considered that "the 'INVOICE 2018' could not be considered suitable, at least as a means of accrediting the services that are billed." In his opinion, the concept is reflected in a "meager and indeterminate" way and "has multiple errors that go beyond mere formalisms."
In this sense, they have also assured that this "lack" could not be supported or complemented with the documentation provided by Monedero, since the email presents a "vague description of the services, mentioning in a cursory way the number of hours, without specifying based on what or what are the parameters that have been taken as a reference to calculate the hours”.
Thus, the agents have insisted that "a minimum documentary support that specifies the nature of the billed services" is necessary. And they have stressed that "the sender himself is aware of the manifest inaccuracy of the email."
During his statement in court, Monedero acknowledged before the judge that the invoice he issued was not made "correctly" because he is not a tax expert, although he assured that it was not a bribe, but that he really did the work for which he charged.
According to what the researchers pointed out, the documentation provided by the political scientist deals entirely with the conferences or papers he held in Mexico, Argentina and Colombia, "no links were found with the commercial company Neurona Consulting SA de CV."
Monedero's defense extracts from the report, however, that it corroborates that there is work carried out for Neurona that is collected in 29 of the pages of the police report itself, which includes the trips made for that purpose. by Monedero to Latin America on the indicated dates and that the invoice of December 31, 2018 was prepared by the investigated party before the bank required it and "not 'ad hoc' as determined in the first report." "The UDEF has not proven that these works have been paid for by others and for issues other than collaboration with Neurona," they add.
For its part, the UDEF insists that "not even the plane tickets" used by Monedero to attend these events were paid by the consultant. As detailed, the payments were made by Podemos, the Envigado University Institution of Colombia, the Autonomous University of Mexico and through the bank card of the executive secretariat of the Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO). "Only one ticket was paid using a card titled by Juan Carlos Monedero," the police say.
They have insisted that if the provision of consulting services had the co-founder of Podemos as a borrower and the Mexican consultancy as a client, "an explanation for the payment of plane tickets by third-party external entities could not be found."
Thus, the agents have indicated - as they have shown in previous reports - that "the consulting work" that the political scientist claims to have provided could not be accredited. In addition, they have stressed that the 26,200 euros that he received from Neurona "are not due to the stated concept", that is, the consultancy.
Therefore, the UDEF infers that "it would be a false invoice and elaborated 'ad hoc', in order to mask the real reason for which Monedero receives the money from Neurona".
On the sidelines, the agents have warned that "most of the files" presented by a mass storage device that they also analyzed "are not related to the facts that are the subject of the investigation", so it was discarded, "deepening specifically in the that are related to the facts.