Court of Alicante approved departure of insolvency administrator failed to provide a convincing explanation for the use of close sources, despite repeated judicial requests five million These came from the company’s accounts Wohnungsbaugesllschaft SLDedicated to real estate development and managed bankruptcy proceedings half a dozen transfers to companies for his benefit or under his control.
In a car against no appealConsisting of the eighth part Judges Enrique Garcia-Chamón, Luis Antonio Soler and Rafael Fuentesdenies the allegations made by the dismissed manager, José Antonio SC, It is against the decision of the Alicante Commercial Judge in the same sense in June last year.
The manager made two dismissals that led to separate criminal proceedings; One is still under investigation, the other is only awaiting trial, where a prison sentence of up to nine years is requested.
The court argues that: “lack of explanation” and “lack of cooperation”It not only justifies the rejection of the appeal submitted by Mercantil 1 to its president, Gustavo Andrés Martín, but also “reveals the lack of transparency that in itself made the breakup possible.”
The request for dismissal, which eventually led the Court to accept the dismissal of the economist in this contest, mentions the “improper distribution of funds” in the amount of approximately five million (4,743,014.72 euros); It is obtained by deducting your total amount. fee (797,984.43 euros) amount of the amount received (5,540,999.15 Euros).
The instruction describes everything in detail, from “transfers to transfers” expenses or personal problems From Mr. SC, who had nothing to do with the bankruptcy, to others made to companies controlled by him. (ASC Consultants and Asociados SL, Stinvalores SL and ASC Aurea Auditores SLP) in various amounts, some totaling over three million.
The order details ensure that the dismissed economist’s personal problems are transferred to his own companies and even the purchase of knives in Japan.
The court emphasizes that the manager did not refuse any of these transfers, citing only one trip. dubai I’m already buying some knives in Japan, expenses he classified as “anecdotal” and for judges “symptomatic of a lack of rigor in their actions.”
The court adds that “the fact that the 18-month reports submitted during the liquidation were not personally questioned by the bankrupt or the creditors does not eliminate the irregularity in these expenses.” And it is “surprising” that “the purchase of knives at the expense of the bankrupt company is justified as a special order from the company’s sales manager and a gift to him or some kind of payment in kind” It lacks any contractual support.
Dubai Trip
In relation to the trip to Dubai, the court found that even if it accepted the (manager’s) hypothesis that the expenses were privately borne, the same is not the case for expenses (meals) in that country without mentioning, nor “any judicial decision warranting the recovery of sums from the property for justified travel expenses.” applied.”
In the order, for which Judge Fuentes Devesa was the rapporteur, in the statement regarding the payment for the trip in question, it is stated that this payment was invoiced on behalf of the bankrupt company. Deduct VAT and corporate tax and therefore everything benefits the company, “it illuminates the lack of honesty (morality) and the confusion of interests with which the funds of the bankrupt company were managed.”
Besides being for the room “contradictory and striking” It is also said that the travel expenses were paid privately and that the company did this because it was necessary for the bankruptcy, “what is unfair is that if the bankrupt company has not paid them, they should be billed to its own account. To benefit from this tax treatment in order to protect that no loss has come to the bankrupt company name it and add that this benefit exceeds the amount of knives purchased as gifts in Japan.
They go further, arguing that “by putting one’s own interests or the interests of third parties ahead of the interests of competitors, there is a breach of the duty of loyalty as a manager to look after the interests of others”, hence “subsequent returns”. , if any, wouldn’t eliminate gravity behaviour.
another apartment
This separation is not the only one accepted for this manager who has just been expelled from another competition, a decision that has not been appealed by the Alicante Court. This is what he demanded La Cañada Business Group SLIn this case, this amount is slightly higher due to the “allocation of financial resources” of the company to the bankrupt company. 160,000 euros.
Events led to separations in both this separation and the previous separation. criminal prosecution. The first, which mandates extensions of deadlines, is still under investigation. Secondly, if an oral hearing regarding the crimes is not held embezzlement in aggravated form unfair management and abuse. There are some charges that call for penalties ranging from six years to prison. prison Public accusation against nine people alleged by individual.
Extension of the complaint regarding the crime regarding the person whose investigation is ongoing frustration over executions and money laundering. A preventive seizure of assets worth 13.9 million was requested in order to eliminate legal liability that may arise from the $ 7.4 million abuse that the bankrupt company claimed was collected by the dismissed manager.