The Third Section of the Hearing of Malaga has left this Tuesday seen for sentencing the trial of the former mayor of Estepona Rosa Díaz and two other people, who acted as liquidators of public entities, for alleged irregularities in the sale and award of parcels at a price below the market price through municipal companies.
The Malaga Prosecutor’s Office accuses Díaz and another of those accused of a continued crime of fraud to the administration in medial contest with another of prevarication, requesting for each one of them in their initial conclusions the penalty of three years in prison, as well as the special disqualification for employment or public office for ten years.
Likewise, the public prosecutor accused the third defendant, at that time municipal treasurer, for his participation as liquidator, for a crime of fraud against the administration in competition with another of prevarication, for which he requested two and a half years in prison and disqualification from employment or public office for nine years. It was also urged to declare the sale null and void.
The public prosecution has maintained its provisional conclusions that it presented in 2015. The trial began this past Monday, in which the accused testified; while in this Tuesday’s session four experts on the valuation of farms, pointing from the defense of the ex-mayor to the “discrepancy” with respect to the value of the square meter of land of the land.
The facts tried took place in 2001 and 2002. The prosecutor considers that the former mayor and the other two defendants, these as liquidators of two public entities, “agreed to benefit” two merchants in the process of alienation of various farms.
To do this, “they carried out the administrative acts and the necessary steps to favor those companies in the adjudication process,” in such a way that they “deliberately violated various rules.”
Likewise, the Public Ministry maintains that the defendants “departed from the public interest” so they awarded the farms “for a price much lower than their market value, thus causing serious damage to the patrimonial interests of the municipal coffers.”
According to the prosecutor, in 2001 the transmission to the municipal company Servicios Estepona XXI of five farms with a value of 3.2 million euros for capital increase. This agreement was made public in March 2002 by public deed in which the defendant participated on behalf of the City Council and the other two defendants, as joint liquidators of the municipal entity.
In a general meeting of the company, in which, according to the public accusation, the defendants were present, the sale of said properties was agreed to at the best offer received after the sale announcement published in August in a sports newspaper. This offer was made by a company for a value of 3.5 million euros, after which it was agreed to sell it, a deed of sale was granted and it was made public.
For the prosecutor, these transfer and disposal operations were carried out “at a price well below the market value and the defendants were aware of all this, causing serious damage to the property interests of the municipality,” since the farms have been expertly appraised in total between eight and ten million euros.
Likewise, in the same government committee in 2001, other farms were transferred to another company, in this case Planning Estepona XXI, also as a capital increase. In this case, says the Prosecutor’s Office, the same process was followed, with the former mayor and one of the defendants intervening as liquidator of the municipal entity. The general meeting also agreed to the sale, in this case, for 1.9 million euros to another company, when the price was higher.
As recalled by the defense attorney for the former mayor, José Carlos Aguilera, the order to open an oral trial was issued in 2015, although this “has not been enough for the representative of the prosecutor’s office to take into consideration that the mitigation of undue delays concur and has limited itself to making the provisional conclusions final. “
For this reason, by way of a report, this defense has asked the Court to recognize in a ruling that the constitutional right of the accused has been violated to a trial without undue delay and their free acquittal.
The lawyer has indicated that “when it was agreed to contribute the estates to the municipal companies so that they could sell them, she was not the mayor,” pointing out that “she limited herself to raising to the public the agreement of the government commission on the transfer of those plots.”
Initially, the trial was to be held in Criminal Court number 8, but in the end the trial was transferred to the Provincial Court for jurisdiction issues.