“They have acknowledged a system of enrichment to plunder public coffers.” This is how the prosecutor has summarized what happened in the trial of the second piece of the Montecarlo case, which was adjourned for sentencing this Thursday with the confession of three of the defendants, who have admitted to embezzling more than 300,000 euros from the Arrecife City Council, using the same system they had previously used in the San Bartolomé City Council.
In fact, the auditor Carlos Sáenz, the businessman José Vicente Montesinos and the current manager of Lancelot Medios, Javier Betancort, were already convicted in the first piece of the case that went to trial, for the looting of almost half a million euros in San Bartolomé, where Betancort was a councilor of Finance, until he later left the position and began working with Montesinos.
As for the fourth defendant in this new trial, the lawyer Federico Toledo, he has been the only one who has defended his innocence, and the hearing and also the conclusions have focused on him. In his case, he is not accused of having participated directly in the embezzlement, but of having been a “necessary collaborator”, and also of professional disloyalty, while he represented the City Council in the lawsuits that Montesinos initiated against the City Council when they stopped paying him invoices for those services that he had not really provided. Arrecife lost the first of these lawsuits and did not even appeal, while the rest managed to be stopped later due to criminal prejudice, as this case had already been initiated.
In his statement, in which he acknowledged that he had a friendly relationship with Javier Betancort, Federico Toledo also confirmed that the alleged work that Montesinos and Betancort invoiced to the City Council was never carried out. “I never knew that those specifications existed, never”, he stated, defending that he tried to maintain this in the contentious trial initiated by Montesinos.
However, according to his statement, the auditor later provided documents to that lawsuit assuring that “the contracts and specifications” existed. “They denied to me that they existed”, Toledo maintained. Regarding the conversations he had at that time with Carlos Sáenz, he denied that he spoke with him about this procedure.
Regarding those specifications, the prosecutor has emphasized that in reality there were “drafts” in the City Council, which would have proven that “they did not respond to any service”. In fact, this has allowed them to prove it in this case, in which three of the defendants have ended up confessing.
In theory, the City Council hired Javier Betancort -through Montesinos' companies- to draft specifications for different tenders. However, as the Prosecutor's Office has been maintaining, there were neither tenders nor was it necessary to hire the drafting of those specifications, which could have been prepared by municipal officials. In fact, the prosecutor has emphasized in the trial that the specifications that Betancort delivered as alleged work -charging up to 18,000 euros for each one- “had been taken from the website of the Government of the Canary Islands”, since they were standard documents where only the name of the service or supply to be contracted was changed.
After having already paid more than 300,000 euros thanks to the collaboration of another person who was charged in the case and who died during the investigation, the former Councilor of Finance José Miguel Rodríguez, the arrival of a new councilor to this area caused the payments to Montesinos to stop, as Carlos Sáenz recalled after confessing in the trial.
At that moment, the businessman took the City Council to the Courts to also claim that payment and the lawyer appointed by the then mayor, Cándido Reguera, was Federico Toledo. “His performance may have been better or worse, but the City Council had zero cost and zero damage”, his defense argued when presenting his conclusions in the trial. However, both the Prosecutor's Office and the private prosecution, exercised by the Arrecife City Council, and the popular prosecution, exercised by Acción Cívica, have agreed that Federico Toledo did harm the municipal interests, among other things by not appealing a first instance ruling that had sided with Montesinos.
However, Toledo has maintained that although that ruling became final, it was later alleged that there was criminal prejudice to not execute it. “If they have paid it, it is for other issues, it is not my fault”, he has stated, affirming that he has no “knowledge that it has been paid” for that final ruling, and that the other two procedures were not resolved and are suspended pending this criminal trial.
For her part, the lawyer of the popular prosecution has questioned that what Federico Toledo should have done from the first moment he was assigned this lawsuit was to file a complaint. “There was no contracting file, the work had not been carried out and there were clear reports from the Treasury and Contracting”, she has emphasized, pointing out that the only thing there were orders from the auditor saying that it should be paid. “The lawyer should have gone directly to the Prosecutor's Office, not respond to a contentious matter. The City Council had to have reported these facts, which Federico Toledo did not do”, she added. Finally, it was the Prosecutor's Office, through Ignacio Stampa, who initiated these proceedings ex officio, after receiving an anonymous complaint that could come from a City Council worker.
In their conclusions, the prosecutor and the two prosecutions have maintained that Federico Toledo had “ties” both personal and business with Javier Betancort -who at that time worked with Montesinos and was the one who acted before the City Council for the collection of invoices-, so he should have refused to assume that lawsuit as there was a conflict of interest.
For his part, Toledo has acknowledged that he had “friendship” with Javier Betancort, but has denied that they were partners. In this regard, to refute the reports prepared at the time by the UDEF that detail those business ties, Federico Toledo has pointed out that they did form part of the same company created in 2008, but has alleged that in 2011 he sold the shares and ceased to be an administrator.
Regarding a trip he made to Fuerteventura with Javier Betancort, and which, as stated in the case, was paid for by one of José Vicente Montesinos' companies, Toledo has stated that he made that trip to do Betancort “a favor”, out of “friendship”, because he needed advice on labor matters. And Javier Betancort has stated the same, who has been the only one of the three confessed defendants who has agreed to answer questions from Federico Toledo's lawyer.
Regarding that trip, which is recorded as paid through Montesinos' company Tributos La Oliva, Toledo's defense has emphasized that the amount of the boat ticket was fifteen euros. “If they have an association in which they are both getting rich, I don't see it”, the lawyer has stated. Furthermore, despite that payment, Federico Toledo has assured in his statement that he never had “a relationship with Montesinos' companies”.
However, the Prosecutor's Office and the prosecutions consider that those ties should have led him to abstain from the procedure, since there was a “conflict of interest” to represent the City Council in a lawsuit against Montesinos and Javier Betancort. In addition, they add to this that in that intervention as a lawyer, he consciously harmed the interests of the City Council.
“It exceeds what could be a simple infraction of the code of ethics. There is malice. There was a clear intention to harm the interests of the City Council, benefiting third parties”, has stated the lawyer of Acción Cívica, Irma Ferrer. In addition, she has recalled that the other link between the defendants was in Cándido Reguera, who was also charged in this case but died during the investigation, and who, like Javier Betancort and Federico Toledo, belonged to the PP.
Reguera was Councilor of Finance of San Bartolomé when Montesinos began to collect false invoices from this City Council, and later he was mayor of Arrecife, when the plot moved to this municipality. And it was he who appointed the one who was his party colleague, Federico Toledo, as a lawyer in the lawsuit initiated by Montesinos.
“He appoints him because they had prior friendship and common interests. He appoints a trusted lawyer who could manage”, has stated the lawyer of the popular prosecution, who has maintained that Toledo “left the City Council defenseless” in that lawsuit. On the one hand, by not notifying that there was a conflict of interest that prevented him from assuming the procedure. Afterwards, according to what he has maintained, answering the claim “in extremis” and attending the hearing without the necessary documentation, which even forced its suspension. And finally, not appealing the first instance ruling. In addition, the Prosecutor's Office and the City Council's lawyer have also emphasized that Toledo took several days to notify that ruling to the City Council.
A good part of Federico Toledo's statement has revolved around these last two points, who has alleged that if he did not inform the City Council earlier that they had lost the trial it was because he was traveling. “I don't think there has been any damage to the City Council for taking longer. He had 14 business days to file the appeal”, he has alleged. In addition, he has assured that if he did not file an appeal afterwards it was because he was told to do so from the City Council. In this regard, he has defended that he proposed to allege that there was criminal prejudice, given that the Prosecutor's Office had already initiated the investigation of the Montecarlo case, to stop that case in the contentious-administrative channel.
However, both the then mayor, Manuel Fajardo Feo, and the one who was secretary at that time, Francisco Javier López, have testified as witnesses and have denied having given him instructions not to appeal. “My opinion is that it could have been appealed and the criminal prejudice included in the appeal”, has stated the former secretary, who in any case has emphasized that this was a guideline that should have been marked by the mayor and that the lawyer “should not decide on his own”. As a result of that, López issued a report that in 2013 led the mayor to send a letter to Federico Toledo, asking him to withdraw from the contentious matters in which he represented the City Council against Montesinos.
After receiving that notification, the defendant has stated that he replied in writing to the mayor. “I told him that I had nothing to regret, that I had done the work correctly, but that I accepted it”, he has related, affirming that he did not receive any further response. For his part, the lawyer who represents the City Council as prosecution in the case has reproached Federico Toledo for not withdrawing from the procedures despite the mayor's indication. And that he did not do so either when in 2012 he was summoned to testify as charged in this criminal case.
“An honest job would have been to withdraw after his indictment”, has stated the lawyer, who has questioned that it was from that indictment when Toledo changed his attitude in the contentious matters he was carrying against Montesinos and began to give “appearance of correct action”. Finally, in 2019, Federico Toledo sent a letter -which he himself has provided to the case- to the then mayor, Eva de Anta, communicating that he was leaving the lawsuits. “I was proud of my work, but if I had to resign due to the code of ethics, I would pass it on to another colleague”, he has stated.
For his part, the City Council's lawyer has questioned that “he did not withdraw in 2012 -when he was charged in this case- and he did in 2019”, and has pointed out that his attitude “was due to some type of strategy in the face of what was coming upon him”. In addition, the Prosecutor's Office has also emphasized that since he answered Montesinos' first claim -in the trial that he ended up losing with a final ruling- Toledo “had knowledge of the Prosecutor's Office's proceedings and did not refer to them”.
During the trial, which was scheduled for three days and has been resolved in one after the confession of three of the defendants and the waiver of most of the evidence that was planned, four other witnesses have testified in addition to the former mayor of Arrecife and the former secretary. One of them has been the current secretary, Asenet Padrón, who also held the position before Francisco Javier López.
Padrón has been asked about the complaint she filed shortly after the investigation of the Montecarlo case began, when she assured that the then mayor, Cándido Reguera, the deputy mayor, José Montelongo (pending trial in two other pieces of this case), the former Councilor of Human Resources, Nayra Callero, and Federico Toledo himself had entered her office in her absence and had taken documents from the file that the Prosecutor's Office had requested, and that later appeared in Reguera's house. Padrón has explained that she reported it because it seemed “very serious” to her and that a month later she was dismissed by the mayor, in a decision that was later annulled by the courts.
In addition, Nayra Callero has also testified, who has stated that she does not remember having been in that meeting in the secretary's office with Federico Toledo. “I remember having testified in the Prosecutor's Office, but I don't have what I said at that time in my head”, she has stated when they have tried to refer her to that statement, in which she did acknowledge having been in the secretary's office.
“Let's see if I remind her and improve her memory”, the lawyer of the prosecution has commented before relating what different witnesses have confirmed that happened that day, and even asking her if she herself “lied” in her statement during the investigation. “I'm telling you that I don't remember it”, the witness has insisted. “Do you remember that Cándido Reguera took documents?”, she has asked her next. “I don't know, I'm not Cándido”, Callero has responded, pointing out afterwards that at that time “they entered the offices with total naturalness” and that “then they were not locked”.
Another of the witnesses to testify has been José Manuel Fiestas, in this case at the request of Federico Toledo's defense, for his role as secretary of the San Bartolomé City Council. In that statement, the defense has asked him about a lawsuit that one of Montesinos' companies also won against San Bartomé, also based on a report prepared by Carlos Sáenz, who was the auditor of both municipalities. In this regard, the lawyer of the popular prosecution has emphasized that the one who represented San Bartolomé in that lawsuit is the same lawyer who represents Federico Toledo in this trial, that is, the one who was conducting the interrogation. In addition, she has assured that he also has “business ties” with Federico Toledo and Javier Betancort, although the lawyer has denied it.
During this statement, the president of the Chamber has warned that issues related to another piece already judged and without direct relation to this case were being addressed. Thus, Toledo's defense has renounced to continue with another witness related to what happened in San Bartolomé, the former mayor and current president of the Cabildo, María Dolores Corujo. In that municipality, it was the departure of Miguel Martín from the Mayor's Office -convicted in the first piece of Montecarlo- that put an end to the illegal payments to Montesinos.
Finally, in a particular trial that has been held halfway between two islands and by videoconference -with the magistrates and two of the defendants in Gran Canaria and the other two in Lanzarote, together with their lawyers and the lawyer of the popular prosecution- the lawyer of the Arrecife City Council has also testified as a witness, who has changed his role for a few minutes to answer the questions of Federico Toledo's defense. In the brief interrogation, he has only given an account that, indeed, when he assumed the representation of the City Council in this case, he held a meeting with Toledo so that he could inform him of the status of the contentious proceedings that he had carried against Montesinos.
