They push for an Earlier Closure
Two intimate collaborators of former Labor Minister Eduardo Zaplana sought relief from the fifth section of the Valencia Court, filing an extraordinary request to void proceedings they’ve described as invalid. The move targets the court’s ruling that enabled Zaplana’s trial and rejected the final appeals known as the Wasteland case, insisting the process should be reconsidered.
The appellants are the siblings Elvira and Saturnino Suanzes, both under investigation for their close ties to Zaplana and his alleged intermediaries. Elvira Suanzes served as a prominent Zaplanista member of parliament and held the role of general secretary at the Valencian Institute of Youth (IVAJ). After years away from politics, she reentered the spotlight amid suspicions that the Civil Guard’s Central Operations Unit (UCO) interfered with Zaplana’s exoneration and that of his supposed front men. The Suanzes siblings argue that such interference taints the case against them and others connected to Zaplana’s circle. This is noted within broader allegations of influence and manipulation around the Erial investigations. Attribution: Valencia Court.
Saturnino Suanzes, a practicing lawyer based in Barcelona, is said to have continued the activities associated with Zaplana’s youthful ally and confidant, Joaquín Barceló, known as Pachano, in a venue described as “Andorra.” The Suanzes family reportedly operates four companies with accounts open in the Pyrenees nation, and UCO notes describe a “union of interests” linking Barceló, Grau, Belhot, Zaplana, and Suanzes. The Civil Guard’s report also indicates that the Barcelona attorney played a role in protecting the activities of a Panamanian company owned by Barceló. Attribution: Valencia Court.
In their appeal, the Suanzes brothers urge the fifth section of the Valencian Court to reverse the October 13 decision. That ruling, issued by the fifth division, upheld the procedures laid out by the Valencia 8th Investigation Court and the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor in the Erial case, and dismissed the final appeals of several defendants. It permitted the possibility of an oral trial against former minister Zaplana, former Generalitat head José Luis Olivas, and others under investigation. Attribution: Valencia Court.
The Suanzes’ lawyer described the October 13 ruling as unlawful, contending that it infringed the brothers’ fundamental rights through flagrant invalidity and a lack of proper motivation. The attorney claimed the judgment suffered from an “absolute absence of reasoning, argumentation, and consensus of error,” affecting his clients’ rights. Attribution: Valencia Court.
They Seek an Early Resolution
The document emphasizes that the statements made by the three judges in the fifth part of the trial allowed an prematurely concluded instruction, failing to specify which materials were relevant, attached, or excluded in relation to the investigated facts. The legal filing argues that the court’s decision to reject the appeals and the compressed procedure used by the eight presidents of the Investigation Court left the Suanzes brothers in the dark about crucial facts and actions that could constitute a crime. Attribution: Valencia Court.
According to the appeal, the suspects were not informed of how the law enforcement team in the Erial case arrived at its conclusions, nor which evidentiary methods were employed. The document asserts that the records do not reveal the precise actions that would be taken by the brothers regarding the facts under investigation, making it difficult to understand whether any money laundering or other offenses might be alleged. Attribution: Valencia Court.
In essence, the filing questions which specific steps the two brothers would undertake in light of the information presented, and whether such actions could, in a typical fashion, amount to money laundering. Attribution: Valencia Court.