The investigation of the Montecarlo case, which has changed judges several times since its beginning, has been reactivated in recent weeks. Both the Arrecife and San Bartolomé City Councils have received new requests for documentation from the Court, now under the charge of Magistrate Ricardo Fiestras Gil, who continues to investigate the alleged embezzlement of hundreds of thousands of euros from these two councils.
In addition, while new fronts are opening in the investigation, the Prosecutor's Office also requested the archiving of one of the five pieces that were separated from this case. Specifically, the one related to the payments that the company Gesineal received from the Arrecife City Council. It was Prosecutor Ignacio Stampa who requested "the provisional dismissal and consequent archiving" of this piece, and the Court issued an order on September 3 agreeing to that measure.
This implies the archiving of several charges, although all those affected remain under investigation (and charged) in the rest of the open pieces. It was precisely the coincidence in the names (of those who were paid and those who authorized the payments) that led to the investigation of the invoices paid to Gesineal.
One of the partners of this company, Javier Betancort, is charged in the piece that originated this case, for payments from the Arrecife City Council for allegedly unperformed services. In that case, which is still under investigation, the alleged works were carried out through the company of one of the main defendants, José Vicente Montesinos, for whom Betancort worked after being Finance Councilor in the San Bartolomé City Council. Both Montesinos, who was in charge of tax collection in that Consistory, and Betancort, are also charged in the San Bartolomé piece, in which alleged crimes of embezzlement are being investigated, among others, linked to that collection service.
They returned the amount of an invoice after the investigation began
In the case of Gesineal, the payments that were being investigated were of a smaller amount, the largest being 4,200 euros. "Once the documentation submitted by the City Council has been analyzed, as well as the judicial statements made, the present criminal case cannot be sustained, as there are no solid indications of criminality", the Prosecutor's Office states in its writing regarding this piece.
One of the reasons that led to the investigation of this company is that they even charged the same invoice twice. However, the amount of that invoice ended up being returned to the City Council, although it was after this investigation had begun and documentation had already been requested. In all cases, the payments corresponded to the preparation of specifications for awarding services such as the management of the children's school, the removal and dismantling of vehicles, or the installation and maintenance of canopies and information supports, between the years 2010 and 2011.
"Without prejudice to the suspicion that emanates from the apparent lack of need to assume an expense for such services, whose maximum amount is 4,200 euros, from the coincidence of some of the investigated persons with other facts that do gather founded indications of criminality in other procedures related to the initial complaint, and from the fact that the entity Gesineal SL discovers an accounting imbalance in its accounts only when the documentation on its services provided to the City Council is required from the Prosecutor's Office, and that it is then when the amount of 4,200 euros doubly charged for the same service through two invoices of different dates is reimbursed to the municipal coffers, it is certain that the services were entrusted, that some of them were even reported by municipal officials (as in the case of the Chief of the Local Police), and that apparently they were provided in accordance with what was requested", the Prosecutor's Office states.
Thus, despite underlining the "suspicions" that these payments arouse, including whether there really was a need for this contracting, the prosecutor concludes that one cannot speak of irregular contracting, because the City Council availed itself of the procedure of "direct award or minor contract"; that unlike what happens in the payments to the other investigated companies, the legal procedures are indeed accredited; and that the duplicate payment of the same invoice was corrected, even if it was when they were already aware of the Prosecutor's Office investigation.
"Founded indications of criminality"
In this piece that has been archived, the comptroller of Arrecife, Carlos Sáenz, was charged; the current mayor and former Finance Councilor, José Montelongo; the former Finance Councilor of San Bartolomé and former manager of the Regulatory Council, Javier Betancort; the lawyer Federico Toledo (Betancort's partner in Gesineal); the former mayor of Arrecife (now deceased), Cándido Reguera; and the former PP councilor Lorenzo Lemaur.
Now, the investigation continues with the other four pieces, which are in turn the largest in terms of the sums that were paid and that are under suspicion. On them, the Prosecutor's Office also points out in its writing that there are "founded indications of criminality".
In addition to the two pieces linked to Motensinos and Javier Betancort (one in San Bartolomé and another in Arrecife), in the case there are two other pieces related to payments to the companies Inelcon and Tunera. Some of those charged, such as Carlos Sáenz, are in all the pieces, while the rest will have to answer only for the alleged crimes that are being investigated in some of them.
