The acquittal of former Suma director José Manuel Bonilla on the charge in question has been confirmed, with the court establishing that the split contracts did not represent a crime. Although there remains the option to appeal the ruling at the Supreme Court, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office—the sole prosecutor in the case—opted not to pursue an appeal.
Earlier reporting by this publication noted that the Second Circuit of the Alicante State Court acquitted Bonilla of perjury and upheld the decision to divide the contracts. The ruling stressed that the agreements with the two traders complied with applicable laws and that the defendants had put in place oversight measures intended to detect any irregularities.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office had sought a 12-year disqualification for Bonilla. The case linked to Bonilla’s leadership at Suma led to his dismissal from a key role within the tax authority, a move that followed only months after Carlos Mazón took office as president of the Provincial Assembly. During the proceedings, the prosecutor wondered aloud whether the investigation was sparked by an anonymous complaint from someone familiar with how the administration operates.
The concern centered on contracts awarded to two different firms between 2016 and 2018. The first contract covered consulting and advisory work in human resources, while the second involved production, management, and marketing of content for both online and offline channels. The Prosecutor’s Office contended that these small agreements were artificially split to keep each individual amount under the threshold that would require a public tender. The case also raised questions about potential excesses for two magistrates. There was no proven link showing a prearranged interest that would benefit the traders, nor was there evidence that the selection of the contracts exceeded established public procurement rules.
The court found no proof that the defendant had any prior relationship with the companies that would suggest an intention to benefit them, either directly or through irregular contracting with those parties. Bonilla acknowledged knowing the managers of both firms, but asserted that hires were based on solid professional references.
The Chamber noted that even though the two contracts bore similar titles and general features, they were distinct in the projects they pursued. The court recalled that the law does not categorically prohibit all forms of fragmentation and limits that kind of division to cases where it is used to defraud mandatory advertising and procurement rules. In this instance, the court concluded that the rules governing fragmentation were not violated.
no clue
The magistrates outlined responsibilities for Suma’s leadership team regarding oversight of the contracts, which were found to be compliant with regulations. They also signaled that there were no indications of deliberate fragmentation. The defense asserted that a digital oversight system had been introduced to prevent irregularities, and witnesses consistently supported the view that no attempt to circumvent control measures had been demonstrated. The court emphasized that none of the testimony supported a plan to re-contract with the same traders under a different mandate, suggesting that fraud or irregularity was not present.
Specifically, in the human resources consultancy segment, the first contract dated from 2016 involved an amount of 12,200 euros and followed Bonilla’s arrival at Suma to advise on organizational optimization as well as talent assessment and professional development opportunities. The second contract, signed in 2017, targeted conflict mediation services to address workload and stress among staff. A third contract, signed in 2018 before the establishment of a new regional division, reflected the requests of the department head. In the digital marketing area, a separate agreement was made for staff training, with the contracted firm handling more specialized projects beyond Suma’s direct digital communications framework.