The accusation attributes him to have maneuvered to favor a friend during his time at the head of the Institució de les Lletres Catalanes (ILC)
The president of Parliament, Laura Borraswill face six years in prison, 21 years of disqualification and a fine for the alleged manipulation of contracts when he was in charge of the Institution of Catalan Letters with the aim of favoring a friend and collaborator, Isaías Herrero. As reported on Tuesday by EL PERIÓDICO, she is accused of a crime of prevarication and another of false documents and is acquitted of embezzlement and administrative fraud, criminal offenses that would have further increased the request for a prison sentence. The public accusation also demands the same sentence for Herrero and three years for another involved in the plot Andreu PM The three are demanded the maximum penalty for the crime of falsehood, a criminal offense punishable by a sentence of between three and six years in prison. prison.
On June 29, the investigating judge of the TSJC Jordi Seguí concluded the investigation into Borràs and three more defendants (one of them excluded by the prosecution) and concluded that the president of the Parliament “abused her functions” at the head of the ILC and agreed with her friend Herrero, between 2013 and 2017, the division and irregular award of 18 minor contracts for a total amount of 330,442 euros (in the end, 309,176 euros were paid).
Acting with “full consciousness”
Related news
The magistrate maintains that Borràs allegedly “issued unfair resolutions when approving the awarding of these minor contracts” under suspicion, “with full awareness” that their concession “contradicted the requirements of the regulatory legislation” of the public sector. The public accusation emphasizes that a contest was omitted to “only favor the interests” of his friend and “to the detriment of the defense of general interests.” This conduct allegedly falls within the crime of prevarication.
According to the documentary falsehood, the judge emphasizes that the “accumulated evidence in the investigation” showed the “preparation and subsequent presentation” by Herrero of budgets attributed to people and entities that have denied their intervention in them, as well as in the “reality” of the offer that was reflected in each one of them. The “preparation of the budgets”, he insists, was due to the purpose of this defendant and Borràs “to simulate a concurrence of offers in the contracting files of the services related” to the ILC website.