Chamber II of the Supreme Court has handed down a sentence in the so-called first period of the ‘Gürtel case’, which covers the period 1999-2005, confirming in general terms, with slight adjustments in penalties and fines. The prison sentences of up to 51 years and the one related to the PP for being a “lucrative participant” in the corrupt plot are maintained, although the court considers that the party did not commit a crime of corruption. The magistrates of the high court have disfigured to those of the Hearing their mentions to Box B of the party included in the previous sentence.
This almost total ratification of the judgment of the National Court comes more than two years after the first ruling was made known. The condemnation of the PP, now firm, included in the one that ended with the arrival of Pedro Sánchez to the Presidency of the Government.
According to the sentence issued now by the Supreme Court, the PP remains a lucrative participant in the electoral acts paid for by the companies of the Correa Group -in reference to the ringleader of the plot, Francisco Correa- in the Madrid towns of Majadahonda and Pozuelo when Guillermo Ortega and Jesús Sepúlveda were candidates for those mayors.
For this reason, the high court confirms that the PP must pay 133,628.48 euros for the acts carried out in Majadahonda and 111,864.32 euros for those in Pozuelo, having verified that there was illegal enrichment to the detriment of the interests of the State , generating a civil obligation of return. They will pay it directly and in solidarity with Ortega, Sepúlveda and other convicts such as Correa himself, José Luis Peñas, Juan José Moreno, Carmen Rodríguez Quijano -correa’s ex-partner- and Pablo Crespo.
Around with Box B
In its appeal, the PP alleged violation of the rights to honor, to effective judicial protection without defenselessness and to the presumption of innocence because it considered that the National Court had unnecessarily included statements related to the existence of a box B in the PP, attributing to the political formation a crime that was not prosecuted.
Chamber II considers correct, in part, the dissenting vote of the judgment of the Hearing, subsequently appealed, in which one of the judges assessed these statements as “excessive and expressive of an irregular technique in the drafting of the sentence”. After hours, from the Supreme Court they have come out to clarify that this quote is from the private vote of the previous sentence and not theirs.
In the new sentence it is argued that criminal responsibility cannot be affirmed without accusation or defense and it is recalled that the PP was brought into the process as a participant for profit, which “presupposes that the beneficiary not only did not participate in the crime but was unaware his commission.”
The court explains that no one accused because it could not, so pointing to an unclaimed responsibility is as much as placing yourself in the place of the accusation and condemning without a request from a party, the magistrates maintain. “The contradiction in which the sentence enters is evident, considering that the PP was aware of and criminally responsible, even for theoretical purposes, implies understanding that it was not oblivious to the criminal acts, so that it would be impossible to apply the norm used to impute civilly to said party in criminal proceedings”.
The Chamber also states that the PP cannot be sentenced as “the author of crimes of corruption and irregular prevarication” as a possible recipient of bribes because it has not been accused in the procedure for it, but as a participant for profit.
The reproach to the National Court for the wording of its sentence does not mean that the Supreme denies the existence of a Box B in the PP. This is stated in the ruling in a note on the former treasurer of the party Luis Bárcenas and his wife, Rosalía Iglesias, in which it is corroborated that the Court “had valid and sufficient proof of charge to conclude the existence of a Box B, or accounting extra-accounting, of the PP” by identifying 149,600 euros from these funds that Bárcenas used to acquire some shares of the Libertad Digital media.
In any case, the Criminal Chamber recalls that if the defense of the PP had repaid the money before the trial, their presence at the trial would not have been necessary, since the third-party participants for profit are not guilty but rather civil liability and if they If he had repaid the money before the trial, his civil obligation would have been extinguished.
The main convictions
In a sentence of 1,843 pages, issued unanimously, and for which Judge Juan Ramón Berdugo has been a speaker, the Supreme Court confirms the commission in this case of crimes of bribery (active and passive), false commercial document, embezzlement public, prevarication, illicit association, fraud against the public administration, money laundering, crimes against public finances, influence peddling, misappropriation, or illegal exactions.
Some of the penalties are raised as fraud and embezzlement that were committed in competition with crimes are now punished separately, as requested by the Prosecutor’s Office in its appeal, which is also estimated to raise the amount of certain fines. And the reductions are given by appreciation of extenuating circumstances (such as collaboration in the case of Francisco Correa due to his statement at trial), acquittal of some of the crimes committed or new individualizations of sentences that are considered more correct.
They have remained in this way compared to those imposed by the National Court: for the ringleader Francisco Correa 51 years instead of 51 years and 11 months, for the former mayor of Majadahonda Guillermo Ortega 40 years and 3 months instead of 38 years and 3 months, for the former leader of the PP and ‘number two’ of the plot Pablo Crespo 36 years and 8 months instead of 37 years and 6 months, for Luis Bárcenas 29 years and 1 month instead of 33 years and 4 months and for the former Madrid councilor Alberto López Viejo (27 years and 10 months instead of 31 years and 9 months).
Rosalía Iglesias, who was sentenced to 15 years and one month in prison, has seen her prison sentence reduced to 12 years and 11 months. Bárcenas’s wife will now have to go to prison after having eluded her all this time after paying bail. As for the former minister and former leader of the PP Ana Mato, her responsibility as a lucrative participant in the amount of 27,857.53 euros for the trips and other services that the Correa Group offered her family is ratified.
PP reaction
Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling was made public, the PP has expressed its respect for judicial decisions. “We abide by the sentence as it could not be otherwise, the facts are condemnable and the facts are there,” they have stated from the national leadership of the party headed by Pablo Casado.
However, going back to Pedro Sánchez’s motion of censure, Génova has stressed that said maneuver “was based on some paragraphs (of the sentence) that the Supreme Court has now eliminated.” In fact, they wanted to emphasize, the ruling literally says that “the authorship of the party cannot be affirmed as the author of crimes of corruption and irregular prevarication.”
Facebook Comments
Disqus