The former comptroller, Carlos Sáenz, the former PP councilor, Pedro Reyes, and the businessman José Daniel Hernández have accepted a two-year prison sentence for having embezzled funds from the San Bartolomé City Council between 2004 and 2007. The three defendants have acknowledged the facts, reaching an agreement of conformity with the Prosecutor's Office, who initially requested sentences of five and a half and six years in prison for the defendants. In addition, in the case of Carlos Sáenz and José Daniel Hernández, they must jointly compensate the City Council in the amount of 81,219 euros.
Likewise, the Public Prosecutor's Office has not opposed the suspension of the sentence for Pedro Reyes as he has no prior record, but it does oppose the suspension for Carlos Sáenz and José Daniel Hernández. The reason is that, although at the time the events judged this Monday took place they had no prior record, currently both have other convictions behind them and are serving time in prison. The businessman José Daniel Hernández was already convicted in a piece of the Unión case focused equally on fraudulent payments by the Arrecife City Council together with the former comptroller Carlos Sáenz, who in this case has several convictions for embezzling funds from both city councils.
The defenses of Carlos Saénz and José Daniel Hernández have requested, however, that they do not have to serve the sentence in prison, alluding to the commitment of both to pay the compensation for civil liability and that they had no prior record at the time of the events. For its part, the defense of the San Bartolomé City Council has not opposed the suspension of the sentence of any of the three defendants.
In addition to the prison sentences and the compensation for civil liability, Carlos Sáenz and José Daniel Hernández have been imposed the penalty of disqualification for a period of five years and the former councilor Pedro Reyes for four. The mitigating circumstance of cooperation with Justice has been applied to the three defendants.
Accused of embezzling almost 600,000 euros
In the case judged this Monday, the Prosecutor's Office maintained that the three defendants agreed and "devised a plan that had the purpose of the arbitrary spoliation of funds from the San Bartolomé City Council", so that José Daniel Hernández "obtained an illicit patrimonial enrichment". To do this, "they created the appearance that certain lighting services and other electricity services were going to be provided in the municipality of San Bartolomé, knowing that in many cases, such services were not going to be executed".
In total, Hernández came to collect 582,813 euros from the San Bartolomé City Council through one of his companies, Proyectos y Servicios de Lanzarote. According to the Prosecutor's Office, he did so "totally and absolutely disregarding the rules that regulated the public procurement procedure" and "under the fiction of multiple files", in which "the fiction of direct award by minor contract was created", when the truth is that the amount prevented resorting to that procedure and forced to put it out to tender.
In the indictment, the Public Prosecutor's Office also maintained that, of the 36 files that were processed, "at least in 13 of them the work was not carried out or the service object of the contract was not provided". Thus, it considered proven that at least 155,061 euros were paid without the City Council obtaining any consideration, which was the amount it claimed that the three defendants should return jointly to the City Council. However, this extreme has been modified by the Prosecutor's Office this Monday, reducing to eight the files in which the works were not executed and therefore the amount of the compensation has been reduced to 81,219 euros, which only Carlos Saénz and José Daniel Hernández will finally have to face.
As for Pedro Reyes, it is considered proven that he signed the conformity of 17 of those invoices as Councilor for Public Services, "despite having knowledge of their mendacity, assuming the expense and simulating that the contracting file was valid and that the service or the work had been performed in the agreed conditions".
