change years
In this case, the public prosecutor asserts that a public employee altered residency dates by claiming that several document holders exceeded three years, a manipulation meant to support applications for work and residence permits. The Alicante Immigration Office is at the center of the allegations.
The defendant acted in concert with his partner, who knew that the immigrants sought the document. In the living room setting described by prosecutors, the partner allegedly requested photocopies of the immigrants’ documents and forwarded them to the public employee for processing. Prosecutors say they demanded varying sums of money in exchange for the requested documents.
They are dismantling a group that forged registration certificates
This week the employee and his partner both chose not to testify, after their lawyers requested a series of preliminary questions and a postponement. The hearing nonetheless proceeded as scheduled.
More than twenty of the 82 charged immigrants testified. Several faced language barriers during the proceedings, and the room microphones frequently captured their statements. Reported sums ranged from 300 to 2,000 euros, though a number of witnesses indicated they had paid nothing.
rapport
During the proceedings, many defendants admitted facts in exchange for potential reductions in sentence proposed by the Public Ministry. A few cases, however, were not covered by the agreement. The official involved and his partner reportedly did not accept those terms.
The prosecutor maintains that both individuals committed the crime of falsifying an official document, seeking prison terms of six and three years respectively, along with identical disqualifications for the first defendant who remains employed. The trial schedule acknowledges possible adjustments at the final stage, given delays dating back to 2000–2007.
The immigrants who were also accused of document falsification faced fines in exchange for their indictment, with payments around the stated amount of just over 700 euros. The trial will continue with the remaining defendants, as fifty of the original eighty-four still require resolution after the hearing where some defendants were summoned but did not appear or could not be located. Legal observers note the paradox that those acting in accordance with the justice system could face greater difficulties than others if some individuals are not fully tracked down or identified.