The former president of the Cabildo, Pedro San Ginés, appeared this Wednesday before the media to give his version of how he acquired his home, which belonged to Ignacio Calatayud's father-in-law, Felipe Fernández Camero, and which is part of the investigation opened against him for alleged crimes of embezzlement of public funds and bribery, among others.
According to San Ginés, the sale price was agreed in 2011 and was 360,000 euros, "even above its cadastral value, which in 2012 was 222,000 euros, according to the UCO's own reports." Regarding how he faced the payment to Camero's company, he has assured that he did so "with his own funds, available or formally owed, between December of that year and February 2020." And part of this money, he has stated that he delivered it "in cash." Specifically, 95,000 euros paid in hand.
"When the price is agreed in 2011, it is agreed with the property at that time that I would make a down payment in cash of 60,000 euros, and I did so after making the pertinent legal consultations and verifying that there was no prohibition or legal impediment to make payments in cash," he said.
"At the expiration of this first contract, and on successive occasions, we renegotiated the payment conditions, but never the price of the house, for which I ended up paying the agreed price, that is, the 360,000 euros initially agreed, although I had to go into debt to do so," he added.
Three cash deliveries
Always according to his own version, in 2011 he made a first cash delivery of 60,000 euros, in 2015 another of 15,000 euros and in 2018 another of 20,000 euros, all in cash. The other 265,000 euros, of which there is documentary evidence, were delivered by bank transfers.
"All payments made in cash, and of course the rest, are legal and come from own funds," defended the former president, who says that last week he explained to the investigating judge the "exact dates and bank of origin of the loans and payments."
In this regard, he pointed out that 85,000 euros came from "cash refunds" from his brother Leando San Ginés, "for loans that he had made from his bank accounts and, therefore, 100% verifiable." The other 10,000, he maintains that he withdrew from his current account at Bankia.
Regarding the loans to his brother, he pointed out that he made up to 10 between 2010 and 2018 -while he was paying for his new house-, for a total amount of 274,000 euros. For this he affirms that he "extended" a previous mortgage credit and that he requested two personal loans.
"One hundred percent of these ten operations for an amount of 274,000 euros, were entirely destined to save the delicate economic situation of Grúas San Ginés. I never received a cent of euro from Grúas San Ginés that was not mine, but quite the opposite. And I did it because my brother and my sister-in-law lived from that company, in addition to my three nieces, who were employees of the family company," he defended.
An unregistered home
Regarding the reasons for not registering the purchase of the house -which still appears in the name of Adelfas 24 SL in the Land Registry-, the former president of the Cabildo de Lanzarote has only pointed out that "it is not a mandatory procedure and, therefore, it is legal not to do so."
In this regard, he has referred to a UCO report, assuring that it concludes that "this lack of normality does not incur in illegality." In addition, he added that the purchase contract -which he has not made public-, "contains a clause with a reservation of ownership that prevents the elevation to public of the sale until it was fully paid, which did not happen until 2020." Since then, that registration has not been made either.
San Ginés has also justified that he did not include that property in his declaration of assets in the Cabildo de Lanzarote, to which the public officials of the Corporation are obliged. "When I made the declaration in 2019, I had not yet paid for it and, therefore, according to the contract itself, it was not my property then and I understand that I only have an obligation to declare my assets at the beginning of the mandate and at the end of it to determine what my patrimonial increase has been," he defended.
The former president, who in his judicial statement responded to his lawyer, but refused to answer the magistrate's questions, considers that in that appearance he was able to "dismantle the conjectures of the judicial orders, clarifying many doubts and explaining in great detail how, when and how much I paid for my house."
