The first session of the judgment against the former Head of Administration and Accounting of the Fairgrounds, Ignacio Castillo Melo, by embezzlement of public funds and documentary falsification he devoted himself, in full, to the questions that the parties asked the accused. Castillo argued that he returned all the money, although he has no documents to justify it. Plus, pointed to the former manager of the aforementioned public company dependent on the Cabildo de Tenerife, Ignacio Pintado Mascareño (already deceased and who denounced the alleged embezzlement), of being aware of all the money that allegedly was diverted directly between the entity’s account and that of his ex-wife to pay alimony of his children, without any documentary evidence that he was reinstated by the now accused.
It should be remembered that the Prosecutor’s Office requests for Castillo eight years in prison, twenty disqualification as a civil servant or public position (already retired) and that returns more than 145,000 euros that he allegedly took out of the public company box for different personal interests.
Of that significant amount of money, more than 124,000 euros were placed in a type of accounting entry that, at the time of some audits, was no longer included in the standards applicable to this practice. This is the Treasury account “578”, which the now investigated used by his own decision to divert some supposed promissory notes on which there was no longer any hope of collection by the insular public company. Regarding this section of the accusation, Castillo once again pointed out or blamed Ignacio Pintado Mascareño. In the words of the person implicated, the former manager told him that these promissory notes could not be diverted to “losses”, since they would generate such a negative accounting balance (more than 50 percent of the total) that it would have forced the disappearance of the Fairground company ; a reality that Pintado did not want, in Castillo’s opinion.
On that occasion, he admitted that the diversion to the controversial accounting entry was made by him, but by order of Pintado. Nor on that occasion did he ask the former manager for a written argument. According to the investigation carried out in the case, these promissory notes were not located. Castillo clarified that he was not in charge of filing such documents, but the other two people who were in his department.
This approach was used repeatedly when asked by the prosecutor, Jonay Socas; the attorney for the private prosecution (representing the Cabildo); the lawyer for the popular prosecution (on behalf of four insular councilors of Podemos in the previous term of office), and the defense attorney.
Castillo explained that all his actions as the former head of Administration and Accounting were controlled by Pintado Mascareño. On two occasions, a Court of First Instance of Santa Cruz de Tenerife sent letters to the public entity dependent on the Insular Corporation so that a total of 510 euros was withdrawn from Castillo’s payroll each month to pay the alimony he was claiming for his children his ex-wife. In the investigation of the case it is clear that a good part of that money went, directly, from the account of the Recinto Ferial company to that of the ex-wife of the accused today.
Castillo assured that, for many years, he had financial difficulties and the monthly payment of those 510 euros would have been a serious damage to his financial stability, since he had to face various expenses. As Castillo said this morning, he spoke about this problem with the former manager of the Fairgrounds and it was he who decided that the amount of money be transferred directly from the accounts of the public company to that of the ex-wife, which the former head of Accounting he was paying and that he did not communicate any of this to the consultancy in charge of preparing and managing the staff payroll.
As already stated, Castillo insists that he returned all that money (11,222 euros), but he cannot provide papers that justify it and said that the only person who knew and could confirm it was Ignacio Pintado.
Another of the amounts for which Castillo Melo is accused amounts to 9,219 euros, based on the “cash vouchers” not destroyed found in his office. Again, the defendant said that he returned all that money, but that the vouchers were not broken.
Regarding the 354 euros that he ordered a subordinate to enter the Santa Cruz de Tenerife City Council to pay the tax (IBI) of a house and a garage, as well as the circulation tax of a quad and a car, he explained that he received the pay notice when he was on vacation and then asked an employee to pay that amount to avoid surcharges. But Castillo insists that that amount was also returned.
The person implicated said that, on several occasions, he warned the former manager, now deceased, that “it was impossible and not recommended” that the Treasury and Accounting of the Fairgrounds were managed by the same person (him), but regretted that Pintado never paid attention to such a recommendation.
As he explained to questions from the prosecutor, the defendant clarified that in the cash box there should always be 4,500 euros to meet extraordinary and urgent expenses. In addition, according to his statement, two other people who were under his orders, identified as Luna and Estrella, had the keys to access the cash that was in the box.
The two main sources of income for the island company were “the showmen” and “the box office” (the tickets paid by those attending the events). The vast majority of vendors entered the rental of stalls through bank transfers.
Regarding the use of cash vouchers, according to Castillo, they were used to pay for food for maintenance personnel, hardware or consumables, for example. But they were also taken out to pay for coffees or breakfasts from the Castle itself, but also from Pintado, according to the investigated. He indicated that, every three months, a financial audit (of the accounts) and another of compliance (on the management) were carried out.
