The Sixth Section of the Provincial Court of Las Palmas has issued four new resolutions rejecting all the appeals presented by the investigated parties in the "San Ginés case" (Pedro San Ginés, Ignacio Calatayud, Juana Fernández de las Heras, and Adelfas 24 SL) against the most important decisions adopted by the investigating judge, such as the secrecy of the case, the order for entry and search of the defendants' homes, access to the content of the intervened information storage devices, the seizure, the prohibition to dispose of their movable and immovable property, the indictment of the investigated parties, and the denial of proceedings requested by them during the investigation.
As happened with the appeal presented by Adelfas 24 SL (owner of the house where Pedro San Ginés resides) against the seizure of said property, these new appeals by the investigated parties have also been rejected by the Provincial Court, with the Court ratifying the existence of solid indications of crimes of bribery, money laundering, prevarication, and embezzlement, among others, to flatly reject the annulment of the decisions that were adopted by the judge who initiated the investigation, Jerónimo Alonso.
The notification of these new resolutions occurred a few weeks ago due to the effects of the strike held by the lawyers of the Administration of Justice. In them, the Court confirms the “good work” of the investigating judge and endorses the main decisions adopted during the investigation, confirming the existence of solid indications of criminality in the events being investigated in the “San Ginés case” (which the Governing Chamber of the TSJC has recently described as one of the biggest cases of political corruption in the Canary Islands).
Manifestly illegal hiring of Calatayud, irregular intervention in the incidents of the contest and appropriation of Inalsa's costs
In another of its resolutions, for which Judge Mónica Herreras is the rapporteur, the Provincial Court confirms the uselessness of the documentary and testimonial evidence proceedings proposed by the investigated parties, “because in the present case, the existence of any document in the archives of Inalsa, or in those of the Water Consortium, regarding the conditions of hiring for the incidents has not been proven,” recalling that “the investigation is aimed at proving the existence of a manifestly illegal hiring with respect to his designation as lawyer in the bankruptcy proceeding, a totally irregular intervention in the incidental proceedings, and the appropriation of the costs generated by them. Therefore, the request to incorporate the guiding criteria for professional fees of the Canary Council of the Bar Association into the proceedings is completely irrelevant to resolve the issues raised.”
The Court also rejects the statements of the witnesses proposed by Ignacio Calatayud - to which his friend Pedro San Ginés adhered - insisting that Eugenia Torres, head of contracting for the Cabildo and secretary of Inalsa since December 2013 (after the completion of the contest), be summoned to the proceeding because “firstly, there is no document in the proceedings authorizing the appellant to take the amount of said proceeding's costs for himself, therefore, the testimonial proposed by the appellant is completely irrelevant when there are indications that the investigated party charged twice for the same proceeding without returning any amount to the Water Consortium.”
The Court also considers irrelevant the possible agreements that Inalsa or the Consortium may have reached with other lawyers regarding costs alleged in their defense by Ignacio Calatayud, because the object of the accusation in this case is “the appropriation by Ignacio Calatayud of the costs of different proceedings without there being a designation for his intervention in them, such as the absence of an agreement on the destination of the costs since the existence of such an agreement on the payment is impossible given that there are neither budgets referring to the cited incidents, nor acceptance of them, nor designations, nor contracts,” therefore - the Court concludes - “The fact, assuming it to be true, that there were agreements with other lawyers in other proceedings would in no way validate the alleged criminal action of Ignacio Calatayud, so it is considered completely irrelevant to compare his case with the possible agreements signed with other lawyers for other proceedings.”
San Ginés hid the collections of his friend Calatayud from Inalsa and the Consortium
The Provincial Court also considers “absolutely unnecessary, useless, and impertinent” the testimonial statement of Eugenia Torres, because “the appellant already provided 8 contracting files as documentary block No. 1 of his dismissal brief, none of which contains his designation or budget for any of the bankruptcy incidents in which he acted on behalf of the entity, appropriating the costs accrued therein; it being evident that said files confirm that the designation of the lawyer required in each case the processing of the contracting procedure with a prior budget,
acceptance thereof, credit retention, and designation of the lawyer by the competent body, which was not done in the cases being investigated in this proceeding, therefore, no usefulness can be provided by the testimony of the persons proposed by the appellant.”
The Court adds that “Eugenia Torres, however much she is the secretary of the Board of Directors of Inalsa and the Deputy Director of the Legal Advice of the Island Council of Lanzarote and Head of the contracting department of the Cabildo, is not the head of contracting either in the Water Consortium of Lanzarote or in Inalsa, for which her testimony in this regard is considered totally irrelevant. Likewise, in her capacity as secretary of the Board of Directors of Inalsa, Eugenia Torres had no possible interaction with the bankruptcy intervention, so much so that not even the investigated Pedro Carlos Martin Toledo, at the time bankruptcy administrator, referred in his judicial statement to having had any conversation with Eugenia Torres.”
Finally, regarding the request that Eugenia Torres declare whether the Consortium and Inalsa knew about the lawyer's collection of costs, the Court concludes that “from the very statements made by San Ginés, it is clear that the president of INALSA and the president of the Consortium were perfectly aware of this circumstance. The question is, precisely, that such knowledge was hidden from both entities since there is no record of such an agreement, as was made clear in the complaint.”
