The first trial of the Montecarlo case focused on José Montelongo's time as Finance Councilor in the Arrecife City Council already has a date. After several changes in the calendar, which could still be modified, the Sixth Section of the Provincial Court has set the start of the hearing for next April 25. In total, 14 sessions are planned, which will extend until June 10.
This means that the trial would start six years after the investigation ended and the Prosecutor's Office filed the indictment, in May 2016, against twelve people. One of them, the auditor Carlos Sáenz, has already confessed in all the previous pieces that have been tried in this case, related to the City Councils of Arrecife and San Bartolomé (in addition to La Oliva, where there was also a branch of the Montecarlo case).
Now, he will share the dock with new defendants, for payments made with public money to the companies Inelcon and Señalcon, owned by Carlos Lemes, between 2008 and 2012.
The indictment states that both companies received more than 3.6 million euros from the City Council during that period, including payments for services not provided and inflated invoices. "A minimum of 757,675.34 euros (Inelcon) and 84,119.55 euros (Señalcon) correspond to services not provided," it specifies. In addition, it concludes that contracts were illegally divided in order to make the awards without putting them out to tender. "They were awarded verbally and without any contracting file," the indictment emphasizes.
Among the dozens of invoices analyzed by the Prosecutor's Office, there are services ranging from electricity for various events and interventions in parks, signage and traffic lights in the city, to the organization of "face painting workshops, carnival mask workshops, balloon twisting and animated Minnie and Mickey dolls during the children's Carnival event" in 2011.
In the indictment signed at the time by Ignacio Stampa, he described the "multiplicity of invoicing for the same concepts, as the same services were invoiced several times through different invoices with ambiguous and generic names, in order to also hide the division of the service", as well as "the payment of invoices for services that were never provided, even with a 22% increase in their amount".
Payments "despite the warnings of the treasurer"
In addition, it describes how many of these invoices were paid through extrajudicial recognitions of credit, "despite the warnings of the City Council treasurer, Antonio Cabrera Panasco." Thus, it maintains that José Montelongo as Finance Councilor and Carlos Sáenz as auditor, included in the list of invoices to be paid those of these two companies, "knowingly multiple invoices that had been unduly recognized previously by the City Council, and for notably excessive and undue amounts, given their division."
"These extrajudicial credit recognition procedures were used by both defendants to more easily conceal the irregularities committed, inducing both to the issuance of the favorable vote of the majority held by the government group of the Corporation, taking advantage of the legally fixed temporary urgency for its approval," he adds in reference to the procedure that was opened throughout Spain to settle outstanding debts with suppliers.
"It is not sufficiently proven that each of the councilors who voted in favor of the agreements did so knowingly of their arbitrariness and the corresponding plunder of public funds, except in the case of the Finance Councilor José Francisco Montelongo Espinosa who formed said file and authorized that the lists of invoices that were approved and whose approval he induced, and the Councilor of Festivities accused Víctor Manuel Sanginés Tremps, also a member of said Plenary, as a privileged connoisseur of its illegality, being the signatory of many of the invoices presented by Inelcon S.L., thereby giving his conformity to the payment and creating the appearance of its legality, regardless of any respect for the public procurement regulations," the indictment states.
Given the period covered by the investigation, in which the government group of Arrecife changed, other former Finance, Festivities and Works councilors, in addition to municipal workers, the auditor and the businessman himself, are charged in the case with crimes of malfeasance, embezzlement of public funds, fraud against the administration and falsehood in official document and commercial document.
The accused, one by one
Carlos Sáenz: He was the auditor of the Arrecife City Council (also of San Bartolomé, Teguise and La Oliva) when the events occurred. The Prosecutor's Office is asking for six years in prison and 10 years of absolute disqualification for him. It also requests that he compensate the City Council, jointly and severally with other defendants, with the amount of 841,794 euros, which is the amount it considers corresponds to services not provided.
José Montelongo: Although he was later mayor of Arrecife, at the time of the events he was a Finance Councilor for the PSOE. The Prosecutor's Office is asking for 5 and a half years in prison and 9 and a half years of absolute disqualification for him, as well as the return (jointly and severally) of 359,458 euros.
Isabel Martinón: She was also Finance Councilor of Arrecife for the PNL during part of the investigated period, authorizing the payment of part of the invoices. The Prosecutor's Office is asking for 5 years and 3 months in prison and 9 years of absolute disqualification for her, and the return to the City Council of 101,374 euros.
Víctor Sanginés: He was one of the Festivities Councilors during that period (for the PSOE) and the Prosecutor's Office is asking for 5 years in prison and 8 and a half years of disqualification for him, and that he be liable for the amount of 76,085 euros.
Eduardo Lasso: He was also Festivities Councilor (for the PIL) and the Prosecutor's Office is asking for 5 years and 3 months in prison and 9 years of absolute disqualification for him. In his case, he is requested to be liable for the return to the City Council of 102,297 euros allegedly embezzled.
Alberto Juan Morales: He was Councilor of Works and Services for the PSOE and the Prosecutor's Office is asking for 5 years in prison and 8 and a half years of disqualification for him, having to be liable for the amount of 88,284 euros.
Carlos Lemes: For the businessman, the Prosecutor's Office is asking for the same penalties as for the auditor, that is, 6 years in prison, 10 years of absolute disqualification and the return to the City Council of 841,794 euros (757,675 invoiced by Inelcon and 84,119 by Señalcon).
Miguel Ángel Leal: He is a sociocultural animator of the Arrecife City Council (in addition to having been a councilor of the Cabildo) and gave the go-ahead to several invoices. The Prosecutor's Office is asking for 5 years in prison and 8 and a half years of absolute disqualification for him, in addition to the return to Arrecife of 65,887 euros.
José Nieves Caraballo: He is a technician-coordinator of the Festivities area of the Arrecife City Council. The Prosecutor's Office is asking for 5 years and 3 months in prison and 9 years of absolute disqualification for him. In his case, he is asking that he be liable for the return of 168,896 euros to the Consistory.
Penélope Tabares García: She was a technician of the Works and Services Council when the events occurred and the Prosecutor's Office is asking for 5 years in prison and 8 and a half years of absolute disqualification for her. She also claims that she be liable for the amount of 79,639 euros allegedly embezzled.
José Antonio Cabrera Moreno: As an official of the Arrecife City Council, he intervened in the authorization of payments worth 29,092 euros. The Prosecutor's Office is asking that he be liable for the return of that sum, and that he be imposed 4 years and 9 months in prison and 8 years of absolute disqualification.
Isidro Hernández Fuentes: He worked as a subordinate in the Arrecife City Council when the events occurred but, according to the Prosecutor's Office, he gave the go-ahead to payments worth 58,731.24 euros. The Prosecutor's Office is asking that he be liable for that sum and that he be imposed 4 years and 9 months in prison and 8 years of absolute disqualification.
