The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor seeks lengthy sentences in a high‑profile Valencia case involving former city and regional officials
The Anti‑Corruption Prosecutor requests a twelve‑year prison term for Alfonso Rus, the former president of the Valencia City Council, along with Emilio Llopis, his chief of staff, former regional Education Minister Máximo Caturla, and Marcos Benavent, the ex‑manager of Imelsa. The action centers on alleged involvement in a criminal network that manipulated public funds and connected contracts with political favors.
In Benavent’s case, prosecutors note that he admitted a dependence on money, leading to a prison sentence higher than initially requested. Since October 2021, after changing lawyers and expressing remorse, the defendant withdrew a prior confession and has attempted to reshape the records that led to the investigation. This shift affected the Taula case, which later unfolded into twelve separate investigations. For now, there is an unconfirmed assessment connected to related reports in Thematic Events coverage.
Four individuals face prosecutions for alleged crimes tied to criminal organization, embezzlement of public funds, repeated falsehoods, and falsification of official documents by public officials. The charges also reference political and personal patronage and the use of publicly traded companies Ciegsa and Imelsa to distribute favors among figures connected to the People’s Party.
In a subsequent phase, the Anti‑Corruption Prosecutor named former Imelsa directors María Escrihuela and José Enrique Montblanch, whom he requested for investigation. They face potential sentences of up to six years for embezzlement of public funds, perjury, and falsification of official documents. The same penalties could apply to others linked to the case. A spokesperson for the PSPV‑PSOE at the Valencia City Council, Rafael Rubio, is cited as promoting two of the allegedly fraudulent contracts with consultants for a four‑month period.
If convictions are secured, the Public Ministry asks Rus, Llopis, Benavent, Escrihuela, and Montblanch to jointly repay compensation totaling 578,160.64 euros to the Diputación de Valencia, the Imelsa heir, which later dissolved into Divalterra. Additionally, Escrihuela and Montblanch would need to return funds received for efficiency and sums reaching up to 303,311.16 euros among the three of them.
Other cases linked to the investigation involve individuals described as zombie workers. The Anti‑Corruption Prosecutor’s Office requested fourteen months for some, a sentence reduced due to circumstances, though criminal records would not necessarily prevent service of the term. In the case of businessman José Adolfo V.C., a charge of dishonesty in an official document saw the penalty reduced to six months after he admitted arranging for two workers under Imelsa to be hired for his company. The prosecutor argued that this should be converted into a fine, while acknowledging that salary refunds had already been returned for the supposed fictitious contracts.
For those considered misfit workers defenders—those who dispute the charges—the prosecutor eventually pressed a sentence of ten months’ fine at twenty euros per day, plus three years and three months in prison and ten years of disqualification. There was also a requirement to repay salaries collected for work with Ciegsa, in the Education Ministry, and Imelsa, the Valencia provincial body.
Regarding a journalist employed as a senior executive, a visual impairment did not dissuade the court from pursuing a sentence of three years and three months, though the Generalitat Attorney General later decided to drop the accusation against this individual. The outcome of this particular matter remains part of the wider legal process surrounding the Taula investigations and related contracts.
The broader case forms a complex portrait of alleged corruption involving political power, public funds, and the management of public companies connected to Valencia’s governing structures. Prosecutors insist that the record of improper conduct must be fully addressed and that any penalties reflect the seriousness of the charges. The proceedings continue to unfold as the court weighs the evidence and determines appropriate accountability for those involved.