José Joaquín Moya, who led Bigastro as mayor from 1983 through October 2008 and was notably detained by the Civil Guard on the 28th, accepted a conforming sentence this Thursday after reaching an agreement with the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. The case stems from investigations conducted by Orihuela courts over thirty years, focusing on alleged irregularities in the administration overseen by the city council president. The accusation, brought within the restitution framework, was presented by the council through its attorney Marcos Sánchez Adsuar.
Moya and his former secretary, pictured during the Elche hearing this Thursday, are central figures in the matter. Antonio Saseta, who served as secretary in those years, also negotiated a deal with the prosecutor and received a sentence of 15 months in prison for the same offense. The resolution requires both defendants to compensate the municipality with 77,858 euros.
Earlier this week, a separate 4.5-year prison term was announced for the sale of land in sector D12 valued at 127,000 euros, a transaction that did not yield funds for the municipal treasury. The subsequent hearing confirmed eligibility for that sentence. In November, the Supreme Court approved another four-year sentence for embezzlement, with three additional matters awaiting trial. Moya had previously been convicted of administrative evasion in 2013.
According to the agreement, it was established that José Joaquín Moya ordered actions for illicit ends, leveraging his official position and specifically controlling the council’s economic and accounting management to benefit personally. The state outlined a series of checks and sums collected for private gain between 2004 and 2007. In 2004, a 3,000-euro payment went unaccounted for by the council with no documented justification. A subsequent transfer of more than 3,000 euros was cashed by Moya on 20 April 2004 and later deposited in a bank account. A fourth payment of 3,000 euros was received on 1 June 2004, and another 3,000 euros was deposited into a media company’s account on 15 April. There are additional checks recorded, including 6,000 euros on 17 December 2004 and 5,000 euros on 2 March 2005, plus smaller sums in 2005 and 2006. A final note indicates a 64,400 euro withdrawal on 25 May 2007, of which only 42,451.5 euros were allocated to settling municipal bills.
The prosecutor’s office emphasizes that the city council and the hotel involved did not establish commercial relations between 2004 and 2007. Moya acted as a partner and sole director of a private enterprise, and invoices issued to the communications company totaled 36,200 euros. The company reported commercial relations with another entity only to the tax authority during that period, and there is no record of the public treasury being involved in those invoices until the listed expenditures. A sum of 9,360.8 euros is cited in relation to these transactions.
Moya’s actions are described as exploiting his mayoral duties to bypass public treasury controls, treating funds as private property rather than dedicating them to public purposes. The court notes that he contributed substantial sums to a media company between 2003 and 2007, eventually becoming a full partner in a hotel venture two months later. The secretary, who had served since June 2002 and acted as a partner and adviser since 2004, was accused of facilitating payments for services not provided and of approving invoices without proper verification. The documents describe payments made before services were delivered and without proper municipal authorization, including several checks and non-verified expenses, all approved at government meetings without adequate proof of service.
The court’s decision describes the former mayor as aware of the illegal nature of his conduct and acting to benefit private interests while displacing public funds. It notes that payments were approved despite lacking signatures from municipal technicians confirming service delivery, and it records a pattern of payments for various services not clearly linked to public needs. The case includes references to payments approved at government sessions that did not reflect actual expenditures or documented services.
During the same period, the mayor and his associates faced scrutiny over the use of public funds for private ends. The proceedings recount that the mayor served as the council’s payment processor, collecting funds from municipal accounts for personal gain during his years in office. The narrative highlights alleged unjust enrichment, with multiple small payments tied to expenses lacking proper justification or public purpose. A collection of alleged expenses ranged from modest amounts to several thousand euros, accumulating to a substantial total over the years in question, with the court underscoring the absence of justification for these outlays.
The court also notes that between 2004 and 2008, the mayor used a municipal bank card for expenditures that lacked stated public necessity, with amounts documented at 13,168 euros in 2004 and 8,205 euros in 2007. The case contains testimony suggesting the involvement of a notary linked to the council who joined in 1999 and left in 2011, and who reportedly was aware of the mayoral actions. It is asserted that the notary and the secretary did not perform proper controls, allowing expenditures to proceed without adequate review. The documents describe how improper acts were accepted and how expenses were processed without proper service confirmation, enabling the improper use of public funds to persist for years.
From the prosecutors’ perspective, the mayor and his secretary both contributed to a pattern of financial governance that enabled personal gain. The narrative emphasizes the long duration of the alleged scheme and its impact on municipal finances, with the political party landscape shifting after the events. The prosecution contends that the mayor benefited from a network of accomplices who enabled the misappropriation of funds and the ordering of services without legitimate public justification. The case remains a focal point in local political history, illustrating how governance processes can be exploited when oversight and transparency are lacking.