The National Court is going to investigate other possible assignments from BBVA to former police officers

Date:

Judge García-Castellón dismisses bank appeal against investigation into “new facts” that his lawyers say have nothing to do with hiring retired commissioner Villarejo’s company

The National Court will finally investigate other possible orders that the financial group BBVA has given to former police officers, as they can shed light on possible irregularities and also confirm ties to controversial former police chief José Manuel Villarejo. This was decided by the investigating magistrate of this macro case, Manuel García-Castellón, after he rejected an appeal from the financial institution to inquire about “new facts” in this case because, according to them, they have nothing to do with contracts with the aforementioned retired commissioner.

According to the bank’s lawyers, this extension of the judicial investigation would have generated “helplessness” by investigating “behind” his back. However, in an order that Europa Press has had access to, the aforementioned magistrate replies that “there has been no secret, surprising or behind-the-scenes investigation of the appellant.” For that reason, it maintains its decision to extend the investigation and initiate a new procedure, after it has processed the facts of the so-called ‘Kitchen’ piece in the case and both the financial institution itself and some of its employees, subpoenaed all to testify as investigated throughout October.

These “new facts” involve the hiring of Anbycol, a company owned by former police officer Antonio Bonilla, who was identified in the inquest as one of Villarejo’s associates, which is why he is also sitting on the defendant’s couch in the first trial to the commissioner for his private affairs. In addition, this data appears to have been collected in two official police documents, one dated April 15, 2021 and another extension dated April 25, 2022, which, according to the bank itself, would reflect the contents of a Bonilla cell phone.

However, according to the entity’s order, when this information was found, the judge had “two options: investigate the facts in the so-called Piece 7 (“Kitchen”) or subtract testimony from it so that they can be examined in another proceeding. or broken. But he did neither.” Instead, he points out, he ended the “Kitchen” investigation, so BBVA understands that this way the way to investigate these “new facts” was closed.

The head of the Central Investigative Court number 6 replies that, apart from the fact that there is no classified investigation, “neither an investigation has been artificially extended, nor a surprise procedure has been agreed, but its practice has been estimated as soon as it has been received. the last official letter” and within the deadline. “No irregularity, injury or impairment of any kind will be appreciated, neither of the applicant’s right of defense, nor of the rules governing the orderly prosecution of the trial,” the magistrate emphasized.

García Castellón confirms that this is not “a new, unknown illegal form about which there was no suspicion whatsoever (…), but that the already existence of a specific separate piece on such facts emphasizes that it was already aware of the factual ground that concerns us, without prejudice to the fact that successive police stations have outlined and specified the criminal attributions “The cause is unique” and “no division of any kind can be made, nor boundaries can be established, nor can it operate independently ‘ he says.

In any event, the bank argued in its appeal that these were facts unrelated to the letting of Villarejo. In his opinion, the only link with the ‘BBVA piece’ would be “the mere fact that Antonio Bonilla was director of operations of this company some time ago”, something he considers insufficient.

For this reason, the lawyers of BBVA – who had already been listed as a defendant before these moves – condemn that “they continue to try by all means to keep alive an instruction that has been amply exhausted”. In this separate piece of the so-called ‘Tandem case’, the judge is placing a magnifying glass on the bank’s contracts with Cenyt, the Villarejo business group, to “execute” several projects at least between 2004 and 2017, some of which have said entity more than ten million euros.

Source: La Verdad

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:

Subscribe

Popular

More like this
Related