Summary of UDEF Proceedings in the Gürtel Case in Valencia
The Economic and Financial Crimes Fighting Branch Directorate, known as UDEF, released and discussed the reports prepared over a span of fourteen years relating to the Gürtel investigations. In Valencia, the court overseeing the final hearing of the Gürtel conspiracy granted two days for the officers to present their statements. The process, however, is expected to extend to at least four days due to the thoroughness of the questioning.
On the docket yesterday, the defense of Dora Ibars, who served as the general manager of Corporate Promotion from 2003 to 2013, presented its arguments. Ibars is identified by Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and UDEF investigators as the architect behind a prominent project stand that involved thirteen participants. The assembly of this stand, they note, occurred at Fitur 2009 without the presence of administrative files. The prosecution underscored this point as part of the overarching Gürtel allegations, a point repeatedly raised by the defense counsel during the session.
The defense argued that Ibars’ involvement in the intervention surrounding the project was limited to safeguarding the Generalitat’s image. The line of questioning sought specific details about invoices linked to the contract for the 2005 Communications Guide, which had been distributed to journalists on USB drives during the 2004 Christmas period. Investigators were pressed to delineate what portion of the Gürtel scheme related to eighty-eight thousand nine hundred seventy-five euros and fifty-nine cents, spread across eight invoices, with the caveat that not all invoices had been issued or collected. The UDEF noted that there were only three invoices in the project’s report because the remaining items were attributed to individuals linked to the Generalitat. Wiretapped conversations from October 2008 to February 2009 provided additional context on the major projects stand at Fitur 2009, and Ibars and Francisco Camps were present for changes to the budget of the stand that sat at the heart of the allegations.
Responding to Ibars’ counsel, the UDEF representative stated that Ibars had to specify costs and negotiate what would be charged for each stand, including the terms of the Orange Market engagement. The defense contends that the intervention aimed to manage image concerns, while investigators maintained that Ibars actively participated in negotiating and approving the project and its budget, determining financing and allocation of responsibilities among organizations affiliated with the Generalitat.
In related testimony, the UDEF investigators asserted that Ibars was central to the process of defining the project scope and budget, insisting that she defined the allocations and negotiated the financing plan for the stand. The exchange highlighted the assertion that Ibars had a decisive role in how the project was priced and distributed among involved parties. The session also addressed the assertion that the Orange Market operated with a reported profit margin of fifty point five three percent, a figure cited by UDEF during examinations of the contract’s financial structure. The ongoing proceedings continue to focus on the mechanisms by which public contracts were allocated and whether these arrangements aligned with proper governance within the Generalitat.
Throughout the hearing, the court explored the timeline of negotiations and the level of involvement of Ibars and other Generalitat-affiliated entities in determining cost structures, project approvals, and the distribution of funds. The facts presented by UDEF and the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office aim to establish a clear record of the decision-making process behind the stand at Fitur 2009 and related budget revisions. The proceedings illustrate the careful scrutiny applied to procurement activities and the accuracy of record-keeping in large-scale promotional projects linked to public administration. The overarching aim remains to determine responsibility and ensure accountability for any financial irregularities associated with the Gürtel case.
Notes for readers: The information above reflects testimony and arguments presented in the Valencia court during the Gürtel investigation. The details cited originate from UDEF reports and prosecutorial statements documented in the case records, including wiretapped communications and the budgetary analyses tied to the 2009 Fitur stand. Marked citations authenticate the statements and provide attribution to the UDEF inquiries and the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office as primary sources for the information summarized in these paragraphs.