The National Court corrected García Castellón for haste in filing the Punica case against Lucia Figari.

The Criminal Chamber of the National Court corrected Judge Manuel García Castellón’s decision to archive the Punic case against four former PP officials, including former education minister and Madrid PP communications chief Lúcia Figar. The Supreme Court explains in its order that García Castellón made this decision under the section that did not correspond to the irregular financing of the PP or the number 9 when Figar is accused in the 10th paragraph of Punica.

In October of last year, the Púnica instructor issued a summary plea order against eight people under Section B of the Madrid PP Box. García Castellón has attended nearly every post in the anti-corruption prosecutor’s office, which reduced charges against 79 people to just eight in July. The two original prosecutors in the case, Carmen García Cerda and María Teresa Gálvez, refused to sign the indictment with such a discount, leaving it only to be signed by Alejandro Caballeiro, the latter who joined the investigation at the behest of the chief prosecutor. Anti-corruption, Alejandro Luzon.

One of the people against whom the charges were denied was the former president of Madrid, Esperanza Aguirre, who saw how her subjects stood up for the bench. The discrepancy between the anti-corruption and García Castellón arose from Salvador Victoria, against whom the public ministry appreciated the evidence of guilt, but the judge did not. Now, the Criminal Division agrees with the judge and leaves Victoria out.

“At least it is difficult to give his behavior a criminal form, because even if it is a temporary and only an educational stage, the next step will be to formalize a criminal case under certain weak conditions,” the chamber magistrates argue about Salvador. Victoria.

As for Lúcia Figar, Manuel Pérez Gómez, Luis Sánchez Álvarez and Pablo Balbín Seco, the fourth section states that they are still under investigation, but apportions the blame between the judge and the anti-corruption agency. Judges will be satisfied that it is within section 10 “where the evidence is made out”, but the judge’s error is “caused” by the prosecution’s prior erroneous mention. “It is surprising that now the prosecutor’s office does not understand the involvement of these people,” adds the chamber. The 10th part of the Punica refers to contracts from the Madrid administration and computer expert Alejandro de Pedro, which are financed with public money, even though they dedicate themselves to the reputation of politicians and PP officials.

Source: El Diario

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *