THE CALL WITH THE ACCOUNTING FIRM, RECORDED

Apolozan case · ERDF fraud (Bilbao / Alicante / EU)

THE CALL WITH THE ACCOUNTING FIRM, RECORDED

On that same 29 September 2017 when the default cycle was being closed, Apolozan held — and recorded — a telephone conversation with Rosa, the professional at the Bilbao accounting firm who had kept the company's books (A.17). The full transcript forms part of this portal's material.

Two things are fixed in that call, in the accountant's own voice. The first: that she had warned at the time that the cross-invoices between the group's companies "are not good, because it is the same company, of the same owner, and that cannot be done". The second: that, despite her warning, those invoices appeared incorporated into the accounts she herself was reviewing — "I have seen that it is entered in the accounts".

Translate it into procedural language: the independent professional who best knew the figures confirms that the accounting irregularity had been flagged as improper, and that it was booked anyway — by those who de facto handled the documentation, which according to the firm itself reached them from Fernando Carcedo's hands. The formal director was not the source of the invoices: he was the recipient of the warnings about them.

In the looming trial, those cross-invoices would be treated as the work of the accused. The voice that could explain their true path had been recorded since 2017. Like so many other pieces of this story, it was available. One only had to listen to it.

The key factRecorded call of 29-9-2017 with the firm's accountant (A.17, transcribed): the cross-invoices had been flagged as improper ("it is the same company, of the same owner, and that cannot be done") and were booked despite it; the documentation was supplied by Fernando Carcedo, according to the firm itself.
The uncomfortable questionIf the accountant was warning and others were booking, why did the criminal reproach fall on the one warned and not on those who were warned?
The ruleThe recording of a conversation by one of its participants is lawful evidence (constitutional doctrine, Constitutional Court judgment 114/1984); whoever manages de facto is liable as a director (art. 236.3, Capital Companies Act).
Open in the interactive portal →

EuroFraud case file · every statement links to its document (A.X / DOC-XXXX). Evidentiary material; every person named is presumed innocent.