The Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has acquitted the former councilor of Works of the City Council of Arico (Tenerife), Álvaro Arbelo, and the two businessmen accused of the crimes of bribery, prevarication and continued fraud in the contracting of works, whose value, according to at the time the Prosecutor’s Office, amounted to half a million euros.
The former councilor of Works of Arico Álvaro Arbelo, on trial for bribery and contracting fraud
Know more
The Prosecutor’s Office requested for each of the defendants 7 and a half years in prison, 22 years of disqualification from holding public office in the case of the councilor, and for the businessmen, 10 years during which they could not obtain subsidies or public aid to contract with entities. public and receive grants.
Entrepreneurs were also asked for a fine of 6,000 euros and to return to the City Council the amounts that differ between the real value of the awards and what was collected.
The judgment of the Court dismantles one by one all the accusations of the Public Ministry and comes to determine that there was no irregularity in the contracts that were under suspicion, nor evidence of bribery or that their own interests were sought in the contracts.
The ruling indicates that it has not been possible to prove “any artifice” or that the defendants agreed to harm the Arico City Council.
Although there are suspicions of the friendship of the councilor with a businessman, immediately afterwards it is indicated that the minor work procedure was not chosen by the mayor and in this way free attendance was guaranteed.
Nor could it be shown that it was Arbelo who personally chose the contractors who were accused of benefiting.
The plot became public when one of the co-defendants launched the suspicions and then made a statement to the police that the Court does not consider “serious.”
In fact, he maintains that there was no damage to the local corporation and not even “an injury project.” “Managed public interests were never in danger. The purpose of harming is not accredited ”, he abounds.
The Chamber rejects that the councilor was the person who chose the invited contractors or who carried out the awards “in a very free way”.
Therefore, the Court maintains, the works were always carried out for the price set by the technician or even lower, looking for the “real” one.
The Chamber draws attention to the fact that the contracts under suspicion were an “insignificant” part of those executed by the Arico City Council.
Nor has it been possible to demonstrate that there was a concert between the politician and the businessmen to seek personal enrichment or that of third parties.
The ruling believes that it was possible to subcontract some section of the proceedings, a specific element or assignment of workers.
In any case, the Chamber points out that no expert evidence was carried out to support that the companies left the entire work in the hands of other companies.
Remember that the councilman could have carried out the contracts directly when dealing with minor works and do so to the co-defendant who presented a more advantageous price.
But this was set by the corresponding technician against whom no accusation was carried out.
Therefore, no type of deviation is detected and not even an agreement to endorse the crime of fraud since the law does not categorically prohibit subcontracting but rather establishes legal limits.
There was also no fraud “or concert or artifice” to harm the administration: the procedures were correct and never altered the legal principles in contracting.
The content of the sentence has been described as “very forceful and clear” by the lawyer Fernando Mesa, who defended one of the businessmen, also rejecting the prevarication.
And all of this insofar as a “manifestly, unfair, crooked and rude” action that seeks to generate interests other than those of the public administration is not detected.
In the sentence, a review of the different works is made and it is concluded that no irregularity was ever incurred beyond those that may be habitual. The secretary intervened in all the files and did not object, which already excludes a possible prevarication.
The sentence indicates that the conduct of the councilor and the businessmen does not constitute the crime of bribery or corruption.
The amounts under suspicion were transferred by the banks and even reflected in the income statement, which would be unprecedented in the case of bribes.
Although there is money whose origin is unknown, there is no evidence that it represents illicit enrichment.
