The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office has claimed 15 years in prison for former Interior Minister Jorge Fernández Díazfor his then ‘number two’ Francisco Martínez and for the operational director of the Police Eugenio Pino for the alleged espionage in 2013 and 2014 to the ex-treasurer of the PP Luis Bárcenas.
This is stated in a letter addressed to the judge who instructs in the National Court the kitchen caseManuel García Castellón, in which it is concluded that his actions should be punished as concealment, embezzlement and crimes against privacy and sentences for the same criminal types are also claimed for the commissioners Jose Manuel Villarejo (19 years), Enrique Garcia Castaño (12 years and 6 months), Andres Manuel Gomez Gordo (15 years) and Marcelino Martín-Blas (the latter only for concealment of a total of 2 years and 6 months). For the ex-driver from Bárcenas Sergio Javier Ríos Esgueva, who was later appointed police officer, 12 years and 5 months and 15 days in prison are claimed.
Coinciding with the provision of this document, the Criminal Chamber of the National Court has published an order in which it rejects the appeal of Podemos, to which the Prosecutor’s Office, the State Attorney’s Office and the PSOE joined, in which it requested the opening of this case to investigate the former general secretary of the PP Maria Dolores de Cospedal.
As regards the document presented by the Public Ministry, it has been made known one day after the instructor issued an order in which he gave a maximum period of twenty days to the prosecutors in charge of the investigations Miguel Serrano and César de Rivas so that they request the opening of the oral trial formulating the indictment or, where appropriate, the dismissal of the case.
indoor dome
The prosecutor’s account establishes the start of this operation in the first half of 2013, when “from the dome of the Ministry of the Interior”, headed by Minister Fernández Díaz; the Secretary of State for Security Francisco Martínez Vázquez and the then deputy director of operations (DAO) of the National Police, Eugenio Pino “was devised, without also being able to rule out the intervention of other people from different instances, a illegal police intelligence operation”.
The accusation that he PSOE in it kitchen case He has already requested 48 years and four months in prison for a dozen crimes to Fernández Díaz, whom, as Head of Interior When the events occurred, he considered him the head of the parapolice unit set up to allegedly spy on Bárcenas with the aim of trying to take away the documentation that proved the existence of a box b in the PP.
For its part, Podemos asked that Fernandez Diaz be sentenced to 41 years in prison. He also asked that the former president of the Government Mariano Rajoyhis former ‘number two’ Soraya Saenz de Santamaria and the former general secretary of the PP Maria Dolores de Cospedal testify at the future trial.
Of the total number of defendants against whom the prosecutor is directed, only the payment of compensation in the case of seven of them. The one who was head of Internal Affairs of the Police is exempt Marcelino Martin Blasbecause for him only a conviction for concealment is requested.
For the others, the Prosecutor requests that they be sentenced to indemnify the marriage integrated by Bárcenas and Rosalía Iglesias with 9,000 euros; to which must be added others 57,943 euros as compensation to the State who will have to face the former minister Fernández Díaz, his right hand Paco Martínez and the former DAO Eugenio Pino, jointly and in solidarity with the rest.
The text emphasizes that the defendants did not share at any time with the investigators of the Gürtel case -neither with the UDEF, nor with the Prosecutor’s Office nor with the Investigating Court- the police intelligence operation that they carried out against the Bárcenas, and the purpose of keeping this information hidden was none other than prevent the legal case from reaching the leaders of the Popular Party.
The account of the facts of the indictment outlines all the actions carried out to seize the documents that Bárcenas could have related to the gurtel both at the time he was released and during his stay in the Soto del Real prison (Madrid), as well as the entry into the premises of General Díaz Porlier street in which his wife Rosalía Iglesias had a painting and restoration studio, as well as the vsurveillance carried out on the couple. Likewise, it is verified recruitment of his driver, Sergio Ríos, and how this was compensated with 2,000 euros per month charged to the reserved funds of the Ministry of the Interior– between the month of July of the year 2013 and the month of September of the year 2015.
Three policemen are left out
Anti-corruption finds no evidence of the intervention in this operation of three other police officers who until now were being investigated, who are whoever it was head of the Economic and Fiscal Crimes Unit (UDEF) of the National Police, Jose Luis Olivera and the chief inspectors José Ángel Fuentes Gago and Bonifacio Díez Sevillano. However, these three police commanders were included by the investigator among the defendants and prison sentences are requested for them by other persons in this case.
In the case of the former, the Prosecutor’s Office does not find sufficient evidence to justify a request for penalties despite its “frequent contacts” with Commissioner Villarejo, evidenced in the agendas of the commissioner. It has not been possible to prove that this police command ‘controlled’ the driver of the PP treasurer or made any payment or will increase your wealth by intervening in these operations, although there do seem to be conversations in which he appears to be aware of them when the matter came to the press. Nor is there any trace of his actions in the proceedings against Bárcenas during his stay in the Soto del Real prison, aimed, according to the public accusation, at “obtaining information and documentation that could be incriminating for the leaders of the Popular Party.”
Regarding the inspectors, the Prosecutor’s Office points out that in August 2015 they received a Mail from the Deputy Operations Directorate (DAO) with information from certain investigations, one of which, related to the ‘kitchen’, stated at the same time that it presented coincidences with the investigation of the ‘Gürtel’ plot in the National Court. This single piece of information, in the opinion of Anticorruption, is not enough to point out that none of them participated in any of the actions carried out by the defendants to obtain information and documentation from the environment of Luis Bárcenas and his family.
Cerrojazo to investigate Cospedal
Regarding the order of the Chamber, the magistrates of the Third Section of the Criminal Chamber of the National Court confirm the definitive closure of the investigation of kitchen agreed by him Judge Manuel Garcia Castellon.
The appeal maintained that the appearance of new indicative elements -several audios with conversations recorded by Villarejo- came to prove the participation of relevant members of the leadership of the Popular Party, and specifically of its then general secretary.
However, the magistrates refer to what has already been said in other previous appeals that also sought to involve both Cospedal and her husband, the businessman Ignacio López del Hierro.
Related news
In this regard, they point out that the notes in the agenda of the investigated José Manuel Villarejo and messages over the telephone “are not sufficient indications of participation of (…) Ignacio López del Hierro or María Dolores de Cospedal in the events since are weakened by the testimonies of those investigated José Manuel Villarejo, Sergio Ríos and Andrés Manuel Gómez Gordo, together with the recognition of the first two of their meetings with José Manuel Villarejo for issues outside the facts investigated & rdquor ;.
They add on the audios that “it is unknown if the conversations they contain, when they are not obviously cut off, are complete and the context in which they were produced is unknown, essential to be able to interpret them. For this reason, the reasonable doubt of a different value result from that made by the appellant and the adherents is not excluded& rdquor ;.