The Economic and Fiscal Crime Unit (Udef) of the National Police has been investigating the businesses and assets of Pedro de Armas for more than two years, within a criminal case that was opened in January 2012 by the Court of Instruction Number 3 of Arrecife, and of which nothing had transpired until now, since the proceedings were until recently under seal. During this time, the investigation has also been extended to Pedro de Armas' wife and children and his "corporate network", in search of alleged money laundering crimes. Now, the Provincial Court has ordered to continue the investigation of the case, understanding that there are sufficient indications to do so.
Specifically, what is being investigated is De Armas' alleged participation "in operations related to properties, granting of licenses and execution of works connected with the administration", especially with the municipalities of Arrecife and Yaiza, "from which illegal proceeds may have been obtained that may have been laundered or diverted outside of Spain". In fact, the investigation has included a rogatory commission to Argentina, requesting data on Pedro de Armas' economic movements in that country.
In a ruling by the Provincial Court to which La Voz has had access, it is stated that the investigation was initiated at the request of the Udef itself, as a result of the work that this same unit had carried out in the "Yate case", which investigated the massive granting of illegal licenses by the former mayor of Yaiza, José Francisco Reyes, and which is currently pending trial.
Within the framework of that investigation, the agents repeatedly encountered the name of Pedro de Armas, related to Reyes both by his membership in the same party, the PNL, and by the personal and economic ties between them. Furthermore, among other things, Reyes granted De Armas licenses to build in the Playa Blanca Partial Plan, which were later declared illegal by the Justice.
Suspicious business operations
In its report, the Udef referred to Pedro de Armas' corporate "network" and recounted "various business operations" that aroused its suspicions, linked above all to the purchase and sale of plots, of which the police became aware because the information had already reached the Centralized Body for the Prevention of Money Laundering. Furthermore, the Udef emphasized that Pedro de Armas has held in recent years "various public positions related, in many cases, to urban planning, all while appearing as a businessman with businesses in the real estate world and with businesses with the former mayor of Yaiza".
The Udef then requested the opening of a criminal procedure, and its request was granted by means of a ruling on January 16, 2012, also ordering the secrecy of the proceedings.
Since then, the Udef has been sending periodic reports to the Court and opening new lines of investigation, which also reached Pedro de Armas' companies and his direct relatives. And among other things, "significant transfers of money to his children, through donations" have been found, as well as "possible outflows of money to Argentina, still unclear", since when this ruling was issued, a response had not yet been obtained from the rogatory commission sent to that country.
The Court annuls the dismissal
In July 2013, shortly after a change of ownership occurred in the Court that is investigating the case, the new judge addressed the police giving them a period of 7 days to report "in detail on the investigations carried out and their conclusions".
After receiving the police report, the judge issued two rulings on August 12, changing the criteria of the previous judges and ordering the provisional dismissal of the proceedings and the lifting of the secrecy of the summary. However, the Prosecutor's Office appealed this decision and the Provincial Court has sided with it, concluding that there are sufficient indications to continue the investigation. What the Court has not accepted is maintaining the secrecy of the summary, so the parties have already become aware of this investigation.
"No matter how long the investigation has lasted, it is far from exhausted, since it is precisely lacking not only that the judicial police provide the final report of their investigations, carried out from various judicial authorizations", "but, above all, the documentation that has been collected over time and that we are not aware that it has been attached to the case or examined by the instructor when adopting the appealed decision", the Court points out in its ruling. Furthermore, it adds that even "the information that has been claimed from the Republic of Argentina" has not yet been received, for example.
Thus, it agrees with the argument maintained by the prosecutor Ignacio Stampa in his appeal, to which La Voz has had access through the chief prosecutor of the province of Las Palmas, Guilermo García Panasco. In his writing, the Prosecutor's Office denounced that the right to effective judicial protection had been "violated by the instructor, because the case has been concluded without exhausting the investigation, since the proceedings that, in their day, were agreed upon by other judges who knew of them have not yet been carried out". That is, the two judges who have also passed through that Court during the time that the investigation has lasted.
"Facts that deserve to be analyzed"
Furthermore, the Court also agrees with the prosecutor in questioning the "assessments" made by the current judge of the Court of Instruction Number 3 of Arrecife, in relation to the police reports and even the origin of the investigation.
Thus, far from the assessments of the judge who dismissed the case, the Court maintains that the investigation has revealed "facts that at least deserve to be analyzed, an analysis that is far from complete".
Therefore, it maintains that it must still be determined whether Pedro de Armas' "economic capacity" "corresponds or not to his business activity", and questions that what the judge has done is to enter to "justify" the different operations under suspicion "one by one", "on occasions without further additions than the affirmation by the Instructor that the operation is normal in commercial traffic".
These operations include purchases and sales of plots in the Playa Blanca Partial Plan and in Arrecife, where De Armas obtained millionaire profits ("extraordinary", according to the Court), obtaining licenses where they had previously been denied. In fact, those licenses were later declared illegal by the Justice.
Furthermore, the investigation emphasizes Pedro de Armas' political connection with both municipalities, since for years he has been a councilor of Arrecife, where he was even a councilor of Urban Planning, and he was also a party colleague of the then mayor of Yaiza, José Francisco Reyes, with whom he has also shared "businesses" and a "personal relationship".
Businesses with other defendants
To all this, the Court emphasizes that "it must be added that in the various real estate operations in which" Pedro de Armas "intervenes", "and which are exposed by the police, he appears also related to other businessmen who are defendants in various cases for crimes of bribery or influence peddling", such as Luis Lleó, among others.
Therefore, it considers that "precisely" the information that is still missing in this investigation "is that which could make it clear to us whether these actions in connection with people charged with various crimes, and which have resulted in extraordinary benefits, have or do not have a foundation or basis with their business activity", or whether it could be linked to alleged criminal activities.
This is not the first time that the name of Pedro de Armas has appeared in a judicial investigation, although on this occasion the case focuses on him. Previously, among other things, he testified as a witness in the first criminal case opened for the license of Costa Roja, granted to Luis Lleó. The architect of that project denounced in the courts the alleged illegalities and assured that Pedro de Armas was the intermediary between Lleó and the former mayor of Yaiza, affirming that an alleged illegal commission of 3 million euros was paid.
At the beginning of 2013, the Prosecutor's Office requested that new proceedings be carried out in that case to investigate the "indications" against Pedro de Armas, considering that he could "have been the economic mediator of José Francisco Reyes in Yaiza and negotiator of possible illegal commissions".
Furthermore, De Armas was also investigated in the Unión case and currently the Court of Instruction Number 5 maintains an open piece against José Francisco Reyes for a alleged crime against land planning, for the licenses granted to Pedro de Armas to build 10 chalets in Playa Blanca.
Now, in this new case that has just been known, what is being investigated is the assets of Pedro de Armas, to determine if for years he has been able to launder money from allegedly illicit activities.
