"What was happening at the Urbaser delegation in Lanzarote was perfectly known and consented to by Jacinto Álvarez's superiors." That is what the Second Section of the Provincial Court has concluded, which has acquitted the former delegate of the company on the island of the lawsuit that Urbaser filed against him shortly after he was arrested in the Unión case, within Operation Jable.
"The plaintiff was not unaware of the facts that constitute the object of the lawsuit, and it may even result - although this is partly the object of another procedure - that it contributed to its commission," the sentence warns, referring to the other trial that is still pending, for the alleged bribes paid by Urbaser to public officials and technicians of the Arrecife City Council, both with cash and in the form of gifts.
Álvarez is also accused in that other procedure, but together with several company directors in Madrid, whom he pointed out when he decided to confess the crimes he is accused of in that other case. "If they condemn me before that trial, they discredit me," Jacinto Álvarez stated before the Court last November, when the oral hearing was held, pointing out that that was the reason why Urbaser had filed this lawsuit against him. Now, the Court has decided to acquit both him and the other seven people who sat on the bench, and who had only been accused by the company, since the Prosecutor's Office requested acquittal for all of them. In addition, the ruling concludes that there was "recklessness and bad faith" in that lawsuit and condemns Urbaser to pay the costs generated to three of the accused.
"Urbaser workers provided services in properties of politicians"
During the trial, Urbaser tried to prove that Álvarez had appropriated almost 400,000 euros from the company, with the collaboration of his wife, his two children, and the other four defendants (one of them an Urbaser worker and the other three from one of the supplier companies). Among other things, the lawsuit argued that the former delegate had charged the company for invoices for various supplies, including construction material and plants, which never actually arrived at the Urbaser warehouses. And also that he had assigned company workers, during their working hours, to carry out work in his private home.
However, the sentence indicates that there are "serious doubts" about the "ignorance" that Urbaser really had of both those material purchases and the works that "were carried out not only in Jacinto's homes, but also in those of third parties." In fact, it considers it proven that "workers from the Urbaser delegation in Lanzarote provided repair and construction services in properties owned by various politicians on the island, to whom certain gifts were also given at Christmas time, without it being demonstrated that the Urbaser directors were unaware of such actions."
In this regard, it recalls the statement given as a witness by a company worker, who acknowledged in the trial that "he had done work in other homes, such as that of Mr. Arrocha, an engineer from the Arrecife City Council, and that although he had not done work in the mayor's home, he had been there on one occasion."
Precisely these are part of the facts that were investigated in Operation Jable, which is still awaiting trial and which has among its main defendants the former mayor of Arrecife, María Isabel Déniz, the former secretary of the Corporation, Felipe Fernández Camero, and the former head of the Technical Office, Rafael Arrocha, who has already been convicted in other parts of the Unión case. According to the instruction of that case, Urbaser paid various bribes both in cash and in the form of gifts, first to rig the awarding of the contract and then to inflate the invoices it charged to the City Council. And among those gifts, in addition to trips and luxury products, would also be included work carried out in the private homes of politicians and technicians.
"They gave poinsettias to politicians"
In its sentence, the Court indicates that it gives "credibility" to the statement of Jacinto Álvarez, when in the trial he stated that "although there were many purchases, Urbaser never asked him for explanations of the reason why he acquired purchases higher than those he was authorized for, precisely because they were the ones who authorized him to buy."
The sentence also places special emphasis on the amount of those purchases, since Álvarez could not authorize invoices for more than 4,000 euros, but he did so without the company ever raising objections. In this regard, it cites the example of one of the invoices on which the lawsuit was based, for the acquisition of 3,000 units of poinsettias for an amount of 10,950 euros, "which never reached the Urbaser service."
"Said amount had to be necessarily authorized by the General Division Director, in accordance with Urbaser's own internal regulations, and several witnesses stated that it was heard that poinsettias were given as gifts to politicians," the Court points out, which insists that "given the amount of said invoice, it had to be necessarily authorized by higher authorities, who therefore cannot claim, as is done throughout the lawsuit, the exclusive responsibility of Jacinto Álvarez de la Fuente in the at least irregular functioning of the delegation."
In fact, the sentence recalls that in the trial it was also highlighted that "the central management of Urbaser gave instructions to its delegate for the Canary Islands to ignore any type of control over Jacinto's work, limiting himself to intervening only in matters relating to collections." Thus, the Court reiterates that Urbaser had "perfect knowledge at all times of the actions carried out by Jacinto, consenting to them, among other reasons, due to the good results that the Lanzarote Delegation was yielding."
Dismissal of the only employee who "did not declare what they wanted"
Regarding the workers who testified as witnesses against Jacinto Álvarez, and who were "the main basis of the lawsuit," the Court does not give them credibility. "Despite many workers admitting clearly irregular conduct, not only have no legal actions been taken against them, but they have not even been dismissed from the company," the ruling emphasizes, which recalls that all those workers were "interrogated" by Urbaser superiors after the arrest and confession of Jacinto Álvarez.
In addition, it highlights that the only employee who refused to answer those questions from the company was dismissed shortly after. This former worker, who also testified as a witness in the trial, "referred to himself as the only scapegoat" and stated that "they dismissed him because he did not declare what they wanted," which was "to sink Jacinto." In his case, he had already declared before the UCO before the company met with him, and according to what he related, it was the agents who told him not to talk about the issue, so he refused to answer when the company tried to interrogate him.
During the trial, two Urbaser directors denied that that had been the reason for the dismissal of this employee, but the ruling emphasizes that they also did not clarify what it was due to, when the same was not done with other workers who acknowledged having participated in the irregular activities, and yet continue to work for Urbaser today. In fact, not even the only employee against whom this lawsuit was also directed was dismissed.
A "striking circumstance" that "detracts from credibility"
"The circumstance is, of course, very striking, that despite being accused by Urbaser, for the alleged commission of the continued crimes of fraud and/or misappropriation, he continues to work for the company, a matter that contributes to detracting from the credibility of the account of facts of the lawsuit and, fundamentally, the alleged ignorance that the plaintiffs claim to have of what was happening in the Urbaser Delegation in Lanzarote, which, we understand, was perfectly known and consented to by Jacinto's superiors," the Court concludes.
Both this worker who testified as an accused, as well as others who did so as witnesses, acknowledged, among other things, having collected overtime hours that they did not actually work, although they claimed that they did so by order of Jacinto Álvarez and that they later gave the money to him. However, the sentence also does not consider it proven that it was the former delegate who authorized those payments knowing that they did not correspond, nor what was the destination of that money (a union delegate even stated that it was later used for activities for the workers, such as company meals), nor even that they gave it to Álvarez.
Similarly, it also does not consider proven another of the facts that included the lawsuit, which accused the former delegate of having hired his two children and of having paid them salaries with company money when they were not actually working. In this case, the ruling indicates that several colleagues confirmed having seen both of them providing services for the company.
Accusation with "recklessness and bad faith" only against one supplier
Regarding the other three defendants, belonging to one of the companies that collected invoices from Urbaser as a supplier, the ruling also acquits them. Even, in this case it concludes that there was "recklessness and bad faith" in directing the lawsuit against them, so it condemns Urbaser to pay the costs generated to these three people. On the one hand, because the same conduct that was imputed to them "would have been carried out, at least in a similar way, by other suppliers with respect to whom, however, no accusation is made" (in fact, these operations for which it did present an accusation were those of a lower amount, totaling about 3,500 euros, when the total of the alleged fraud was estimated at almost 400,000 euros). On the other hand, "because it would have been difficult for said conduct to fit into the crimes of misappropriation, disloyal administration or falsehood in a commercial document that, generically, is imputed to the three defendants."
Specifically, Urbaser accused the owner of Coscofe SL and two of its employees at the Pcan gas station in Arrecife of having allowed various mobile phone recharges that did not belong to the company, but to Jacinto Álvarez himself and to family members and people in his environment, to be paid with Urbaser gasoline vouchers. In total, Urbaser estimated at 1,016 euros the amount allegedly defrauded with this method, but the sentence indicates that the only thing it contributed to try to prove it was the testimony of one of its workers, whose statement it also questions, and concludes that it has not been proven.
As for the other operation related to this company, it focused on the purchase of two drums of oil for a total value of 2,490 euros, shortly before the arrest of Jacinto Álvarez. According to Urbaser, those drums were neither necessary nor did they ever reach the company's warehouses. However, the sentence emphasizes that the defendants demonstrated that it was Urbaser who did not later come to pick them up, despite the fact that they contacted them to do so. Thus, it also acquits these three people, for whom Urbaser was asking for three years in prison. Meanwhile, for the only worker against whom it filed an accusation, and who testified in the trial against Jacinto Álvarez, it was only asking for six months in prison, although he has also been acquitted.