"No tender was necessary", "the prices were exorbitant" and, furthermore, none of those tenders were even "completed" or "delivered". That is what the former Finance Councilor of Arrecife, José Miguel Rodríguez, confessed last March 8 in the Courts, who in his last statement in the Montecarlo case admitted to having ordered the payment of invoices for services not rendered. And he assured that he did so by order of the auditor, Carlos Sáenz, and that the objective was to "do a favor" to Javier Betancort.
In reality, those invoices were presented in the name of three different companies of José Vicente Montesinos (Progestril, Recingest and Gestecal). However, according to José Miguel Rodríguez, it was Javier Betancort who "carried those companies" and those contracts with the City Council. And the same was stated by several City Council workers, both from the Intervention and Treasury areas, who during the investigation stated that Javier Betancort was the one who "came to present invoices issued by said companies, as well as to inquire about the payment thereof", according to the summary of the case.
In addition, Betancort was also the one who was supposedly going to do the work, that is, the tenders for different competitions, for which the Arrecife City Council paid close to 200,000 euros to those three Montesinos companies. "I didn't see any tender. They were never made. I only saw two drafts and they were the same, only the object changed", José Miguel Rodríguez acknowledged in his statement. "I have paid for services not rendered because I did not see the tenders", he insisted in his confession, in which he stressed on several occasions that "Javier Betancort, apart from drafting drafts, did not perform any work".
"He was unemployed and Carlos Sáenz wanted to give him work"
Regarding how that alleged assignment was carried out, José Miguel Rodríguez stated that he met with Javier Betancort "motivated by Carlos Sáenz, who was the one who introduced them, because he wanted to give him work". "He told me that he had the ideal person, because he was also unemployed and had economic knowledge", he added.
According to his statement, "at that time he knew that they were doing a favor to Javier Betancort", and also that "the prices were exorbitant" and that "no tender was necessary", although initially he thought that "the tenders were going to be executed". However, only some drafts arrived at the City Council. And they were not presented by the official registry, but sent by email to an advisor of José Miguel Rodríguez, from an account of Javier Betancort.
Afterwards, the invoices were presented in the name of Montesinos' companies, although Rodríguez insists that the "only valid person" in relation to that alleged service and those invoices "was Javier Betancort". It should be remembered that Betancort and Montesinos are also accused in the Montecarlo case relating to the San Bartolomé City Council. In that City Council, Javier Betancort was Finance Councilor and authorized the payment of more than 200,000 euros with allegedly fraudulent invoices to Montesinos' companies. Afterwards, after leaving the City Council, he began working for him for a while, and later contact was maintained between them.
In addition, the other link between both pieces is in the auditor himself, Carlos Sáenz, who also held this position in San Bartolomé, and even appeared as a partner of a Montesinos company in Fuerteventura. And according to Rodríguez, it was precisely Sáenz who urged him to validate those payments in Arrecife. "I validated them all by the guidelines of the auditor. I left everything signed, but it was not normal, because it was necessary to visualize that the object of what is contracted is executed", he declared.
"The auditor was God"
This confession of José Miguel Rodríguez in the Montecarlo case adds to those already made in several pieces of the Unión case, where he has two convictions behind him. And in one of them, for the payments to Proselan for services not rendered, he was convicted precisely together with Carlos Sáenz.
"My relationship with the auditor at the beginning was work-related, but then we reached an understanding where we benefited each other", Rodríguez declared. In this way, according to his statement, the auditor "did not object" to the payment of invoices to companies from which José Miguel Rodríguez himself and his party, the PIL, "benefited". And in exchange, he also "turned a blind eye" to other issues, such as the payment of invoices to Montesinos' companies.
"The auditor was God. He was the one who gave the solution directly. He made the disguise to reach the goal. He gave the wrapping so that he could continue", the former Finance Councilor related. "What the auditor said was as if it were God, it was done", he reiterated, insisting on that comparison. In addition, he stressed that "without the signature of Carlos Sáenz it is impossible to do anything" and added that he "participated in dressing the saint", signing the invoices to make it appear that the service had actually been provided.
"I'm sorry", "I have lost everything"
It was José Miguel Rodríguez himself who voluntarily asked to testify again in the Montecarlo case last March 8. "I am sorry and I want to clarify the aspects that they ask me about the case", said the former councilor, explaining why he had asked to appear before the judge again. In that statement, he himself recalled that he is accused and already convicted in different pieces of the Unión case. "I only have to collaborate with Justice. At the family and work level I have lost everything", he related.
Already in the last trial of the Unión case, Rodríguez referred to his personal situation. "I have lost my house, my marriage, my job. I have lost everything", he declared before the Provincial Court. For this reason, he says that he began to collaborate with Justice, confessing the facts and returning part of the amounts that he recognizes that he contributed to misappropriate.
And now, specifically two months ago, he decided to confess also in the Montecarlo case. "Now I know what embezzlement is. I thought that with the 'disguise' I was not committing any irregularity", "I know that I am not right and I confess what I did at each moment", he affirmed.
