A decade after the investigation began, former councilor Álvaro Arbelo is acquitted by the Santa Cruz de Tenerife Court of the accusation of bribery, prevarication and continued fraud in the contracting of works as mayor of the area in the Arico City Council. The same happens with two businessmen to whom the Prosecutor’s Office attributed the same alleged crimes. The ruling states that the conduct of the three does not constitute the crime of bribery or corruption.
The Prosecutor’s Office requested 7.5 years in prison for each of the defendants, 22 years of disqualification from holding public office, in the case of the councilman, and 10 for the businessmen, 10 years. For these, he also requested 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, reported the Efe agency.
The origin of the case dates back to 2010 and 2011, although it was in 2012 when the Judicial Police of the Civil Guard investigated some real estate scams detecting that a businessman received awards from the Arico City Council to fix roads, build niches, condition a square, improve schools or develop a road. The investigation argued that, apparently, the businessman and two other people had five fictitious companies to which they subcontracted the works awarded by the City Council in an allegedly fraudulent manner. One of those investigated declared to the police that he had witnessed economic deliveries from the businessman to the councilman.
Take down the charges
The sentence rejects all the accusations of the Prosecutor’s Office and determines that there was no irregularity in the contracting that was under suspicion, nor evidence of bribery or that there were personal interests in the contracting. The sentence determines that “no artifice” is proven or that the defendants agreed to harm the Arico City Council.
He admits that there are suspicions of the councilman’s friendship with a businessman, but considers it proven that the mayor did not choose the minor work procedure, which guaranteed free attendance. Nor could it be shown that it was Arbelo who personally chose the accused companies.
The case became public when one of the co-defendants launched the suspicions and maintained a statement before the police that the Court does not consider “serious.” In fact, it maintains that there was no harm to the local Corporation and that «managed public interests were never in danger. The purpose of harming is not proven.
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”. The Provincial Court maintains that the works were carried out for the price set by the technician or even lower, looking for the “real” one.
The court 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. 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, who was never charged. Therefore, no deviation or concert is detected to guarantee the crime of fraud, since the law does not categorically prohibit subcontracting but rather establishes legal limits, according to Efe. There was also no fraud and the procedures were correct and did not alter the legal principles in contracting.
The content of the sentence It has been described as “very forceful and clear” by the lawyer Fernando Mesa, who defended one of the businessmen. A “manifestly, unfair, crooked and rude” action that seeks to generate interests other than those of the administration is not detected.
In the sentence, a review of the works is made and it is concluded that there was never any irregularity, beyond those that may be habitual. The secretary intervened in all the files and did not object, which already excludes a possible prevarication.
The amounts under suspicion were transferred by the banks and 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 entails illicit enrichment, exposes the Court.
