The Provincial Court of Madrid attributes to lieutenant colonel of the Civil Guard Carlos Alonsoone of the officers of the armed institute charged in the ‘barracks case’, suspicious behavior when he was in charge of the Ávila Command that justify keeping him under investigation together with his superior, Lieutenant General Carlos Vazquez Jarava. The court notes presumed corrupt them in the works carried out in 2016 and 2017 in up to 26 quarters located in the province. The works, for an amount of almost 170,000 euros, They were awarded to companies belonging to Ángel Ramón Tejera de León, alias ‘Mon’, a Lanzarote businessman cited in the summary of the Mediator case and who is charged in a Madrid court for the suspicious works in the barracks.
On February 20, the Seventh Section of the Madrid Court issued an order that dismisses the appeal presented by the defense of Lieutenant Colonel Alonso, currently assigned to the Madrid Command, against the decision of the instructor, the Judge María Isabel Durántez, to keep him accused and do not override the proceedings.
Among the conducts that the magistrates consider that they can suppose on the part of Alonso alleged documentary falsification and embezzlement is the immediacy between the presentation of some of the invoicesyour visa and your presentation for collection”, as well as the “discordance between the work carried out and the content” of these documents, as indicated in the order to which EL PERIÓDICO DE ESPAÑA, from the Prensa Ibérica group, has had access. The head of the Investigating Court number 3 of Madrid has been investigating this matter since November 2021 in relation to the works carried out by the companies of ‘Mon’ in thirteen commanderies from all over Spain.
In the decision, the magistrates Angela Acevedo, Francisco Manuel Burñén and Juan Bautista Delgado They point to up to seven reasons to keep Lieutenant Colonel Alonso as being investigated in the proceeding and recount the evidence that exists so far against him. All of them “allow us to infer a factual sequence in which elements such as a credit increase at the end of the year to carry out minor works” among others, of painting, in barracks in the province of Ávila, as well as the recommendation that are awarded to a specific employer residing in Lanzarote and whose mercantile companies have their headquarters in that place.
Order to hire ‘Mon’
In its declaration before the Court of Ávila who began these investigations in 2019, before the case was referred to Madrid after discovering the total number of commands finally affected by awards to Mon, Alonso pointed out that he was then in charge of the General Support Subdirectorate, Lieutenant General Pedro Vazquez Jarava, today in the reserve, who had told him that he should hire a company from Mon to carry out the work instead of going to local businessmen. Vázquez Jarava then occupied one of the highest-ranking positions within the Civil Guard.
The Court of Madrid also includes among its you suspect the procedure chosen to formalize contractsby choosing fixed cash advances and minor works contracts; as well as the Absence of a prior study of the need for the work the Civil Guard barracks in the province of Ávila.
In this way, the allegations made by Alonso’s defense, who appealed to the Madrid Court, arguing that Judge Durántez’s instruction “it makes you defenseless for not assessing the allegations made by the party, nor the procedures carried out, referring specifically to the testimonial statements, the calligraphic expert and the patrimonial investigation“.
For the Hearing, however, it must be taken into account that the investigation has not finished and that an expert opinion is pending on the execution of works in several Commands “with the consequences that could result regarding the subjective scope of the process and the investigation of the facts object of the same”.
On the importance of this test, the Chamber reiterates that it focused initially on the Command of the Civil Guard of Ávila, there being an iexpert report about this particular place where “deviations between what was invoiced and paid for and what was executed in many of the works” are indicated.
Misrepresentations in invoices
In the proceedings, as detailed in the order of the Madrid Court, there are lAlonso’s signature on invoices for work in the barracks of Las Navas del Marqués and Sotillo de la Adrada which appear issued by another of the defendants in the case, a self-employed worker from Alicante subcontracted by ‘Mon’ as a painter, who declared in court that he did not recognize his signature or having made them.
This same worker had confessed to the Civil Guard that Ángel Ramón Tejera de León asked him for his information to do the bills himself and pass them on to the Ávila Command, and that he did so because Mon owed him money and, according to what he told him, was a “quick way to get paid”
Other signed invoices were recognized by Alonso, it is a total of 12 for painting work issued by Angrasurcor, SL and Solocorcho, SL, companies of which Tejera de León is the administrator, among which are those corresponding to work carried out in the Arévalo, Candeleda, Piedrahita, Muñogalindo or Barco de Ávila barracks, dated between November 8 and 9, 2016.
There is also the testimony of a witness who testified in court that when the news of credit decentralization reached him in relation to painting works awarded to Tejera de León “It surprised him”. On occasions, according to this same person, the businessman would bring the budgets and the invoices to the barracks “at the same time” and the latter would be sent directly to Lieutenant Colonel Alonso for a visa, who he paid them “without the works having been carried out”.
release credit
Another of the witnesses who have testified in court showed his surprise that the works awarded to a businessman came and added that it was not normal for an amount of credit to be released at the end of the year like the one that was carried out, which was of 120,000 euros in the Command of Ávila.
Related news
The testimony of another of the agents of the Command of Ávila is even closer to Alonso, since he affirms that the lieutenant colonel himself told him that there was a credit for carrying out works, which was aware that invoices were being passed without having been executed and that it was he who was directly in charge of management. He also ordered her to “the works were done and then invoiced as it should” and that before a meeting that was held with the businessman Mon, Alonso informed him that “they had to be bills of less than 5,000 euros” and the businessman should know it because he brought invoices for minor works.
In addition, and with respect to the argument put forward by the defenses that in other command posts under investigation those responsible appear as witnesses, and not as investigated as Alonso, the Madrid Court points out that said statement does not correspond to the fact that let there be declared as under investigation before the Civil Guard a Commander Head of the Personnel and Support Headquarters of the Alicante Command. This is the third member of the armed institute that is being investigated by the Madrid judge.