The Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has filed a complaint against the mayor of Santa Úrsula, Juan Acosta (AISU)and the councilors of the Government Group Santiago Pérez Ramos and Juan Manuel Amador Gutiérrez for dozens of contracts that he considers irregular, abuse of minor contracts and lifting of objections. Procurement of ten different services (such as drinking water, parks and gardens, hardware or construction material, plumbing and painting) that between 2018 and 2022 they add up to 8.2 million euros in public spending, with 195 objection reports and 86 objection lifting decrees.
Following a hearing of the mayor of the PP Eduardo Suárezon February 8, 2022, the prosecutor began investigative proceedings that just 11 months later have led to a complaint for indications of continued crimes of prevarication and fraud in administrative contracting. Councilor Santiago Pérez Ramos is not accused of this second crime, but Acosta, Amador and nine representatives of companies linked to these contracts in question are.
The conclusions of the Prosecutor’s Office indicate that there would be a crime of continuous administrative prevarication “for the massive and recurring use of minor contracting when it is clearly evident that it is not admissible (…) coupled with the fact of not initiating the legally appropriate contracting files (…) and the systematic lifting of objections formulated by the intervention to maintain this irregular situation”. For the prosecutor, it is “evident that actions have been taken back to the law, twisting the legal system without a legally admissible interpretation that justifies what has been done ». In addition, the alleged “simulation of a concurrence of companies in minor hardware supply contracts, trying to pretend that it is fulfilled with what is required by law.
Between 2018 and 2022, minor contracts worth 8.2 million euros were formalized
Regarding the continued fraud in the public procurementthe complaint states that “the fact that companies controlled by the same people are constantly being requested and contracted, with plenty of data in the files to know that they are the same people, together with the fact that these budget requests and contracts are repeated, evidence that It is not a mere error nor is it about individuals who have deceived the administration. And it supposes the existence of serious indications that there has been a concert between those involved for the illegal award of contracts.
The Prosecutor’s Office warns that “if it is proven that there is enrichment in favor of any of the parties involved at the expense of public funds, there could even be a crime of embezzlement of public funds.” If these indications were to materialize, the judicial investigation would also extend to the companies involved.
The prosecutor stresses thatthe general interest and the essential nature of the services do not imply a kind of carte blanche either that allows members of the administration to act as they want. Neither the general interest nor the essential nature of a service exempts from complying with the law. There may be a specific administrative irregularity that does not constitute a crime, but in this specific case, it is unacceptable to appeal to the general interest and the essential nature of the services to sustain the legality of an action and omission that is absolutely widespread and perpetuated over time.
In the text of the complaint it is indicated that “it is not understood where the councilors and the mayor get the shocking interpretation that the maximum amount of minor contracts, with respect to the same service or supply and in annual calculation, refers to each employer . Implying that multiple businessmen can be awarded contracts for the same service as long as they do not exceed, in annual calculation, the number of €14,999.99 for each of them. It is an interpretation so flagrantly contrary to the law that not sustainable in any way from the point of view of any legal criteria”.
In addition, he adds that “it is surprising that it is said that these contracts fall within what is permitted for minor contracts, when many exceed said sum by 1 cent, and others by 1,050.01 euros. Not to mention those for water and some for hardware, which multiply by several times the maximum amount for which a smaller contract fits. For the Prosecutor’s Office, “this does nothing but delve into the zero interest that has been to adjust to the lawand the complete interest that there has been in moving away from it ».
Local government sources (AISU) told EL DÍA yesterday that those affected have not yet received the complaint and that all the contracts carried out in the exercise of their functions were formalized “to meet the needs of the municipality that in many cases cannot be postponed, such as the purchase of drinking water and supplies.”
