Francisco Grau, former tax advisor to the Valencian regional president and former minister from the PP, Eduardo Zaplana, defended his actions and questioned the confession of Joaquín Miguel Barceló, nicknamed Pachano, who yesterday admitted being a front man for the former president. Barceló claimed he was compelled to act. Grau also pointed to the Cotino brothers.
Grau spoke during the fourth session of the Valencia Audiencia trial in the Erial case, which investigates allegations of more than ten million euros in commissions tied to ITV concessions and wind farms in the Valencian Community. A total of 15 defendants are named, including Zaplana, with fraud exceeding twenty million euros.
During the hearing, the defendant, identified by the prosecutor as the financial brain behind the Erial scheme, said he met Barceló in 1997 or 1998 and Zaplana a couple of years earlier. He framed his testimony as distancing himself from any irregular conduct, insisting he did not issue orders about the questioned companies and funds. He also pointed to Barceló and claimed that the funds of a Luxembourg entity, Imison International, originated from the Cotino brothers, who are also facing charges in this case.
At one point, when asked whether he gave five million euros in a bag or envelope to Barceló to deliver to Andorra, supposedly belonging to Zaplana, Grau replied that he did not. He added that the word bag of money had, in his view, been introduced by the prosecutor and that he did not hand over any such money.
The public prosecutor pressed: Why did Barceló say he gave it to him? Are you on bad terms? The defendant replied that there is a threat of prison hanging over them, noting that Zaplana and he have already faced prison. He recounted two months sharing a cell with Barceló and the subsequent months apart, and he said Barceló told him in early December he would not return to prison and would do whatever was necessary to avoid it.
He observed that statements he valued were often reviewed with others who advised him to act. It was widely perceived that Zaplana had already lost his reputation and that what he might say would be limited. Yet he asserted that there were things he had not experienced firsthand and could not discuss. He decided not to conform. In fact, at the end of the trial, Joaquín reportedly told him, “They forced me to do it,” Grau revealed. He added that he had good relations with Barceló, and after today’s testimony, more would be seen.
“From the Cotino lineage”
Another portion of the interrogation examined the companies set up to handle money from the alleged commissions. First, the focus was on Imison International, which Grau said he met in 2005 through Barceló. Barceló had asked for advice about this Luxembourg entity and an investment, and Grau began gathering information. He met with the Sedesa financial director and explained the investments and the sources of the funds. He stated that the money for Imison came from the Cotino brothers, who are also defendants in the case.
Grau also cited Beatriz García Paesa and requested data and documents about the company. He stressed that he did not issue orders about how to use the funds, only provided guidance on figures to be recorded in documents. When asked whether he told Zaplana about Barceló’s investment via Imison, Grau responded that he did not. He stressed the need for strict confidentiality in offices.
Regarding the companies and accounts in Andorra, Grau reiterated that he did not issue orders about anything, only instructions on numbers to appear in records. For example, he said he instructed on the number of shares to subscribe and the corresponding amount.
When asked who authorized transfers from Imison to two Panamanian companies, Grau said that the person with the authority to act did so. He added that he prepared the data on where to make the transfer or to which companies and amounts, himself.
The prosecutor continued the questioning on Grau’s involvement with other entities such as Medlevante, Gesdesarrollo, and Costera del Glorio. He explained that Barceló presented the investments and asked for advice, and he managed them. “I exist to bill and earn money. Sometimes I win on success, and if it goes wrong, so be it,” he said. The public prosecutor had repeatedly told him that it was unclear why there was a need to set percentages in companies if the money belonged to Barceló.
The prosecutor also asked why Barceló relied on him for operations if Grau already had a consultant. Grau replied that Barceló kept trust in his own assessor in Benidorm who handled payrolls and insurance, but the VAT issue was the most problematic. He suggested that Joaquín placed more trust in what he could see or obtain at the time.
Nonetheless, Grau insisted that he never informed Zaplana of these operations. He said Zaplana would be consulted only when his help was needed for a specific matter. He cited apartments that were to be purchased and encountered issues, explaining that Zaplana had influence over another man who would help resolve the problem and that any mediation would be welcomed.
Grau added that Zaplana introduced him to Fernando Belhot, a key prosecution witness, as an investor. Belhot deposited 1,800,000 euros in the bank for the operation, and Grau was asked whether he knew the origin of that sum. He replied that the bank would handle that concern.
Barco, a home, and a will
Separately, the prosecutor asked about the Madrid flat on Núñez de Balboa where Zaplana resided for a period. Barceló claimed that he negotiated the purchase, while Zaplana said he arranged the sale. Grau clarified that he did not participate in the sale or purchase and only handled the initial contract after the buyer, Barceló, requested it. He noted that he did not endorse the deal but acted at Barceló’s request.
Regarding a boat bought by several people, including Zaplana and Barceló, Grau stated he did not draft the contract or organize the purchase. He claimed the seller prepared the contract and that he might have the buyer details on his computer, but he did not prepare the contract. He added he did not use the boat because of seasickness and that someone else would have provided references for the bank involved in the purchase.
Finally, asked about a will Grau prepared for Barceló, the defendant said it was not a will but a different concept akin to a trust arrangement prepared for an investor as a starting point, rather than a formal testament.