Esperanza Collazos, President of the Investigation Court No. 15 in Madrid, called Plus Ultra to declare at 10:00 on 15 June as the person under investigation as a legal person within the framework of the proceedings. About allegations of irregularities in the granting of public aid he received for 53m euros.
Legal sources confirmed to Europa Press that the magistrate agreed to question the airline’s legal representative for the first time to clarify the facts that would lead to an alleged embezzlement and fraud charge. Thus, he anticipated Vox’s demand, which, as Vozpópuli posted, used the popular accusation in the case along with PP and Clean Hands.
After the experts who wrote the report prepared by the court and the experts who signed the report requested by the State Industrial Participation Association (SEPI) presented their conclusions to the Court on 29 March, the investigating judge decided to listen to the company.
According to the legal sources available in the conflict between experts regarding this institution, experts assured that part of the subsidy given by the Executive to Plus Ultra was used for a payment to Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).
The same sources stated that the court’s experts insisted that the company continue to pay off its debt to the Venezuelan state company as soon as it receives the aid. Experts from Deloitte and DC Advisor explained that it was a payment made to a supplier.
Results of the experts
Plus Ultra confirmed to Europa Press that the oil company-related payment was handled during the conflict. They stated that the expert team advising SEPI explained that “the debt to PDVSA has not been paid due to the embargo and international sanctions”. Emphasizing that the oil company is the fuel supplier not only of Plus Ultra, but also of all companies operating in Caracas, the company emphasized that this “problem” affects all airlines flying to Venezuela.
Upon this action, the court’s independent experts stated that the “usual thing” for a company in need of public assistance is to delay debt and put suppliers on hold.
During the conflict, he questioned whether the company could receive the 53m-euro subsidy, while the latter defended SEPI’s decision to grant the aid. Thus, both teams confirmed the reports they had already defended in court in the first match on January 18, which had to be repeated yesterday due to a technical malfunction.
In about two and a half hours, experts answered the popular accusations brought by Judge Esperanza Collazos, the State’s Attorney’s Office, the Attorney’s Office and Manos Limpias, PP and Vox.
File request pending
Now it will be Plus Ultra’s turn, which is due to go to court on June 15. The company called in as an investigation will be able to choose whether to respond to all charges and to the judge or just his defense; You can also exercise your right not to testify.
After the interrogation, the judge has yet to respond to requests from the State Prosecutor’s Office and the Madrid Provincial Prosecutor’s Office regarding file requests, considering that there is no evidence of any alleged alleged crimes being committed.
State attorney Rosa María Seoane assured him that “the expert report can be concluded, even indirectly, that it does not provide any element that might give rise to doubt that Plus Ultra’s ‘company is not in crisis’ at the end of 2019, and that it may have far less distant indications of any kind. constitutive element of the crime genre”.
The Madrid Prosecutor’s Office concluded that there was no “persuasive factor” to allow the criteria set by the Public Ministry in its previous writings to be changed.