"There is no data to affirm how much money or what gift was given", and "it cannot be affirmed in any way when he did it", "nor if he did it to obtain a license, as a reward for it, or for or for any other reason." And that, "gives rise to the most elementary doubt as to whether the facts, if committed, would have prescribed before their declaration in November 2009." This excerpt from the prosecutor's report, in which he requests the dismissal of the proceedings against a dozen businessmen accused of alleged bribery offenses in the "Reyes case", summarizes the arguments that have led the public prosecution to adopt this decision.
In the writing, to which La Voz has had access, the Prosecutor's Office insists that there is a "accumulation of indications" against these businessmen, which are precisely those that gave rise to their judicial indictment, but adds that they are not "sufficient" to take them to trial.
In short, what the prosecutor's opinion maintains is that the businessmen who were accused, and especially some of them, were clearly "benefited by the allegedly criminal conduct" of the former mayor of Yaiza, by receiving licenses that were illegal, as has been proven in the courts. However, although José Francisco Reyes will continue to be charged with alleged bribery offenses, the investigation has not allowed to clear the unknowns about these alleged payments nor, therefore, to maintain the indictment against the businessmen.
Specifically, when analyzing the case of each of the businessmen who were accused, the prosecutor insists on underlining the doubts that exist about how much money they could have delivered, or if they allegedly did so before or after obtaining the license. And that would be decisive to qualify the type of crime (since there are several types of bribery), and also to establish the years it takes to prescribe. In fact, some of the accused alleged this in their defense, requesting the dismissal of the proceedings.
And it is that even if the indications allowed to demonstrate that some of them paid bribes, they could not be convicted if between the date on which the events occurred and their indictment, more years had elapsed than those marked by that type of crime to prescribe. And hence, the importance of the "when", which has not been clarified.
Reyes "used his public office"
What the Prosecutor's Office insists on in its writing is that José Francisco Reyes, "effectively, used his public office to obtain gifts in money and in kind, directly related to the granting of urban planning licenses contrary to law".
To support this, it is based, among other things, on the fact that while José Francisco Reyes granted illegal licenses in Playa Blanca, he and his family handled "a minimum of 1,256,000 euros", in purchases made in cash and with money of unknown origin, according to the report made at the time by the National Police's Organized Crime and Delinquency Unit.
In addition, the prosecutor emphasizes that that figure could be higher, since the investigation of Reyes' assets was especially complex, "taking into account the difficulties that the passage of time and the consequent loss of bank data have posed for obtaining said data", as well as the "obstruction of the judicial and police investigation by some banking entities". In addition, he also highlights that José Francisco Reyes knew that they were tracking his assets, since when this measure was agreed, the case was not even under seal.
RELATED NEWS
[The "Reyes case" enters the final stretch and the prosecutor requests the dismissal of the proceedings against the businessmen accused of bribery->69073]
