The situation of Inalsa has not only reached the Commercial Court, but will also be analyzed in the criminal field, within the war that the public water company has unleashed on different fronts. Now, it has been the Lanzarote Consumers Association (Aculanza) that has decided to take the matter to the Courts and this Friday, August 5, has gone to the Prosecutor's Office to file a complaint both against the bankruptcy administrators and against the president of the Cabildo and the Water Consortium, Pedro San Ginés, although for different reasons.
In the case of San Ginés, Aculanza asks that an alleged crime of "fraud" be investigated, related to the increase in the price of water. In the letter they plan to send to the prosecutor, they argue that the increase published in the BOP on July 6, in addition to being "brutal", "leonine" and "unjustifiable", was carried out without complying with the legally established procedures.
In the first place, they question that it is spoken "euphemistically of a tax", when they really consider that what has been applied is an increase in rates, "which far exceeds 12 percent on current prices." In this sense, they consider that "any increase in rates must be within the limits of the CPI" and that, in any case, it should have been approved in the respective plenary sessions of the eight owners of the Consortium (that is, the Cabildo and the seven town councils).
In addition, they add that later it should have been validated by the Territorial Price Commission, "as has been done to date by all local entities that have or participate in a drinking water supply company", and then proceed to its publication in the Official Gazette of the Canary Islands.
However, Aculanza denounces that the Cabildo's plenary session was "denied" the taking of knowledge and approval of this water increase, "to cover up and evade alleged and certain responsibilities in the disastrous management" of Inalsa, which they claim now provides "worse service" and with a greater number of supply cuts.
In their writing, they even point out the article of the Penal Code in which the alleged crime they denounce could be framed, and that would be 437, committed by "the authority or public official who demands, directly or indirectly, rights, rates for tariffs or minutes that are not due or in a greater amount than legally indicated".
And it is that according to Aculanza, "they are trying to take advantage of the ignorance (mostly) or the neglect of the possible affected parties, to make this brutal increase, covered up in a cumbersome and tortuous procedure".
The salary of the administrators
Regarding the administrators, Aculanza denounces that they could have incurred in an alleged crime by "falsifying the commercial activity". In this sense, they refer to one of the orders recently issued by the Commercial Court Number 1 of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, which rejected the salary increase claimed by the administrators.
Their salary is calculated in proportion to the company's assets and, in that order, it is pointed out that these amount to 34 million euros, and not the 57.7 million euros proposed by the administrators.
Thus, as Aculanza underlines in its complaint, the judge did not accept to raise their fees to the 315,363 euros they claimed, leaving them at 225,210. For this reason, Aculanza understands that there could have been a deliberate "falsehood" on the part of the bankruptcy administrators and asks the Prosecutor's Office to open investigation proceedings.
