The experts who wrote the report commissioned by the court and those who signed the one contributed by Plus-Ultra have ratified their conclusions in the confrontation held this Tuesday before the judge investigating the alleged irregularities in the granting of public aid of 53 million euros granted to the airline, so the differences over the company’s financial situation remain.
Legal sources present at the interrogation have assured that the experts have testified for more than three and a half hours and have answered questions from Judge Esperanza Collazos, the State Attorney’s Office, the Prosecutor’s Office and the popular accusations made by Manos Limpias, PP and Vox.
the same sources have highlighted the “peaceful” character of the confrontation which, as they have specified, has mainly dealt with the participating loan that the airline received from Panacorp, the sale of one of its aircraft and the company’s economic provisions.
As part of the due diligence, the independent experts have insisted that Plus Ultra was in “cause of dissolution” at the time of receiving the aid approved by the Executive, according to various sources consulted.
Specific, They have ratified the 499-page document in which they explained that there were “more than reasonable doubts” on what the company’s financial situation was as of December 31, 2019 and, consequently, on compliance with the essential conditions for the granting of public aid through the State Society of Industrial Participations (SEPI).
They have also underlined the existence of the participating loan with the Panamanian entity Panacorp, signed on December 22, 2017, for an amount of 7.5 million dollars, equivalent at the time of signing to 6.3 million euros. And they have warned of the provisions derived from two legal proceedings related to Plus Ultra.
For their part, the experts from Deloitte and Daiwa Corporate Advisor -signatories of the report provided by the airline- have maintained their conclusions that the company “was not in crisis” and they gave a favorable opinion to grant the aid.
Throughout the entire procedure, the airline has insisted that it complied with the required processes for the granting of public financing, without which it would not have been able to continue operating after the impact of the pandemic on its business. In addition to the expert reports, it provided a report prepared by the State Aviation Safety Agency (AESA) and the General Directorate of Civil Aviation, which supported the granting of financing.
“Essential Test”
The legal secretary of Vox, Marta Castro, has assured in statements to the press that it has been “essential evidence” and that, in her opinion, “it has been very interesting to see the contradictions” between the two teams of experts, since there has been “many nuances” and “accounting interpretations”.
Castro has announced that they will request the declaration of the legal representative of Plus Ultra and also of those responsible for SEPI. “Without these statements, it seems to me that the investigation is, perhaps, incomplete. And we should not make hasty decisions,” he said.
From the formation led by Santiago Abascal they have insisted that the airline disguised its situation in order to access public aid and have also recalled that there are “personal ties” between Plus Ultra and the government of Nicolás Maduro. “That is something that we believe must also be evaluated,” he added.
Lawyer and Prosecutor’s Office request the file
The confrontation takes place after the State Attorney requested the dismissal and filing of the investigation “as there is no evidence of the commission of any allegedly criminal act”.
State attorney Rosa María Seoane, in a brief, said that it could be “concluded that the expert report does not provide any element that could, even indirectly, lead one to doubt Plus Ultra’s status as a ‘company not in crisis’ at the end of 2019, and much less remote indications of any constituent element of a criminal nature”.
The Lawyer’s Office insisted that the “technical discrepancy exposed in the report of the judicial experts” was not enough to assess, “even tentatively”, any excess on the part of SEPI to grant the aid.
The Madrid Prosecutor’s Office also asked the Court to file the procedure, considering that there were no “conclusive elements” that would allow changing the criteria set forth by the Public Ministry in its previous writings.
After the confrontation this Tuesday, the judge will have to decide whether to continue with the investigation – as the accusations request – or if he agrees to the file – as the Prosecutor’s Office and the Lawyers demand -.