The judge of the National Court in charge of the investigation of ‘Title‘ has denied the television producer José Luis Moreno access to an amount of 6,800 euros destined to repay a loan to his niece and to pay a dental clinic, lacking “all kinds of justification”.
In an order from last Friday, to which Europa Press has had access, the head of the Central Court of Instruction Number 2 maintains that the 5,800 euros that Moreno requires to repay a loan to Natalia Fernandez Rodriguez it is an amount that “was already transferred to it at the time”.
Specifically, remember the judge Ishmael Moreno, the ventriloquist was already authorized two requests last December. In them, he was interested in the “timely payment authorization” of 7,000 euros for María Luisa Rodríguez Moreno and more than 27,000 euros for her niece.
“These requests were authorized by this court, ordering the transfers of the respective amounts from Mr. Moreno’s bank account. Consequently, payments were authorized for the entirety of the respective amounts,” the magistrate points out.
The access to 27,840.59 euros was destined, according to the documentation sent by Moreno to the judge, to cover a series of expenses: the payment of electricity and gas at his home in Boadilla del Monte, gasoline, some tickets to Rome or the postage payment to YOUMORE TV, the company owned by your former close friend, Martin Czehmester.
With his last request to the judge, Moreno intended “Attend to the signed loan contract” in November 2021 with his niece –to whom he had to transfer 5,800 euros– and the payment of a pending invoice to the Arias Clinic worth 1,000 euros.
Motivating his denial, the magistrate assures that “the 5,800 euros can hardly respond to a repayment of the loan in favor of Natalia Fernández Rodríguez, since the total amount was already transferred to her at the time”. “And the amount of 1,000 euros in favor of the Clinic Arias clacks all kinds of justification,” he concludes.
Moreno, the business card
Moreno is one of the main defendants in ‘Operation Titella’, whose investigation began in 2018 and hatched last June with his detention and that of dozens of people in different cities for an alleged fraud perpetrated through a corporate network.
Accused of fraud, money laundering, illicit association, forgery of documents, punishable insolvency and crimes against public estate, the ventriloquist is on parole, with the obligation to appear weekly in court, passport withdrawal and prohibition to leave the country. On July 8, he deposited a mortgage guarantee to cover the bail of 3 million euros that the judge demanded.
The investigators divide the alleged plot into two organizations: one led by Moreno, Antonio Aguilera and Antonio Salazar, dedicated since 2017 to “fraud and fraud against banking entities and private investors”, “to the falsification of bank documents such as checks and promissory notes” and “money laundering”; and another, led by Carlos Brambilla, alleged drug trafficker who would have used said structure to launder money.
According to the judicial report, Moreno and Aguilera would be the “maximum responsible” and Salazar, the third in action. Each one would have a function. The producer, “like well-known public figure, would lend his name as a business card” in order to easily get the financing they would pretend to need to start a film project. Therefore, “he was the main recipient of the funds obtained”.
That money would then pass into the hands of Aguilera and Salazar. The two would have “extensive knowledge in banking and commercial operations”, for which they would be in charge of creating the companies, “make them up“, put administrators and present them to the banking entities as the recipients of the necessary financing for said projects. In reality, they would lack any activity.
Through this network of “front companies” managed by presumed figureheads, both organizations would move “large amounts of cash” to those who tried to give an exit with income that they passed off as profits from their commercial work or with cash injections for which they would have the complicity of bank employees who would take their commission in exchange for introducing this money in the legal circuit.