Most of the defendants in the second block of the trial for the so-called Astapa caseabout the alleged corruption politics and urbanism in Esteponahave availed themselves of their right not to declare with respect to this section that deals with alleged considerations and payments for the granting of urban planning licenses from the City Council.
This block has 14 processedamong them the mayor of said municipality, the former socialist Antonio Barrientos; municipal officials, such as the former head of the Mayor’s Office, and businessmen. The oral hearing was scheduled to continue this week, but since the defendants did not testify, it will finally resume on March 21.
Yes he has declared the former councilor of the Treasury Manuel Reina, who reached an agreement in principle at the beginning of the trial with the prosecutor, after sending him two handwritten letters from prison; and he has also responded, although only to questions from his lawyer, the former municipal architect Arturo Cebrián. In addition, two other defendants have made a brief statement.
In this second block, for the prosecutor, in the Town Hall, “before and after the 2007 elections”, there were occasions in which “by decision” of the then mayor and the one who was his chief of staff “the granting of these licenses to pay municipal expenses or events or PSOE electoral debtsor personal favors”.
For this accusation, “it pressed in particular to businessmen interested in advancing the delivery of real estate developments”. It adds that “this irregular practice was detected through authorized wiretaps”, which have now been annulled by the Court of the case when estimating the previous question raised by the defenses for not being carried out in justified way.
In this sense, one of the defense lawyers has exposed in the session of this Monday a clarification on these wiretaps and his relationship with the block, noting that for the prosecutor the source of knowledge of this section “are the wiretaps” that have been annulled, for which he considers that “the evidence does not exist and is contaminated.”
In this regard, it has indicated that “the current state of the indictment is a blank space”, for which reason it has asked the prosecutor to rule on the situation “given the absolute lack of other evidence.” Other lawyers have joined this request to the public ministry.
The prosecutor, for his part, has said that he assumes the consequences of the order of previous issues, “whether he shares it or not”, and has indicated that he does not know if he is going to keep the accusations in this block, “among other things because it is something that It does not depend on the acting prosecutor, but sometimes he has to raise a query”, but he has said that at this moment he is not going to renounce any of the evidence and will continue.
He has affirmed that he will defend that “there is legitimately obtained independent evidence that could serve as support to support, if not all, part of the accusation” and has indicated that it will be based, without renouncing testimonial evidence, on documents intervened in the records and on others that “hold reasonable suspicion that some economic transactions suspiciously coincide with the granting of licences.”
Statement by former councilor Manuel Reina
Regarding the declarations that have been produced, the former councilor Manuel Reina He has responded to the communication he sent to the Malaga Prosecutor’s Office in which he informed of his willingness to collaborate and admitted some facts; and also specifically to questions about alleged considerations for the Oasis Club workspointing out that it was a time of great activity in Urban Planning.
Thus, he explained that given “the need we had to finance current spending, many times in my case I went to some businessmen to say: I expedite the processing of such a licensewithout this implying anything illegal, except for not respecting the deadlines”. He has indicated that in this case he asked “if he could lend a hand” with advertising investment and with another amount supposedly for the PES.
Reina has pointed out that “many times that offer was left there and on many occasions things came out not because one councilor or another intervened but because the Administration works”. Regarding Personnel, she has indicated that since there was no budget at the beginning, hiring through municipal companies and productivity supplements were given according to said area.
As for the former municipal architect, he has answered his lawyer’s questions about said urban planning file and has defended that his change of opinion regarding this license “had no spurious reason”, specifying that later when he was already mayor david valadez “No one questioned whether these works were passing what was legally established.”
Likewise, he has responded to questions raised by the president of the Court about some payments and regarding the cash income in his accounts that are indicated in a report by the investigators, pointing out at this point that they were “before entering the City Hall.”
In addition, two defendants have made a brief statement, it is the businessman Armando Perezwho has defended that he always acted “with total honesty and within the legal framework”, pointing out that “nobody has asked me nor have I offered to anyone or given any amount”.
For his part, Jamal Satli Iglesias has indicated that after 15 years this accusation has created “tremendous damages to my economic interests for a watch that I have neither given away nor have I anything to do with it and for a license issue that the City Council itself has to give us indemnify”. “I say it simply for relief,” she pointed out.