THE FOUR ADDRESSES

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

THE FOUR ADDRESSES

To understand the following decade one must go back and look, once and for all, at the postal file of the Alicante AEAT. Because Apolozan's "non-location" was not an episode: it was a technique, and it left a documentary series.

Between 2010 and 2012, the requirements and assessment proposals for the 2009 personal income tax went out to four different addresses, in two provinces — including a notification sent to Cádiz (DOC-0213) —, none of them the tax domicile recorded as proven in the Agency's own system (DOC-0226, DOC-0227; A.65). The recipient's life pattern explained everything: a builder who worked all over the country, with his formal home in Alicante — at his brother's dwelling — and seasons spent at the foot of each site. The administration had the correct datum. The postal series avoided it, piece by piece.

And when the destination was a different one, the aim changed: the communications meant to reject appeals or notify the lawyer arrived at the first try, with their certificate (DOC-0186, DOC-0193, DOC-0194). The machinery worked. The address at which it worked was chosen by the file.

On that fabricated "impossibility of notification" the finality of a debt was built, and on that finality, everything else: the seizures, the international enforcement, the 21 properties in Romania. The Alicante postal file is the buried foundation of the entire building — and it is documented, envelope by envelope, in the AEAT's own archive.

The key fact2010-2012 postal series of the 2009 income tax: mailings to four addresses in two provinces (DOC-0198 to DOC-0219; Cádiz in DOC-0213), none the tax domicile proven in the AEAT's own system (DOC-0226, DOC-0227, A.65). The rejection notifications, by contrast, arrived at the first try (DOC-0186, DOC-0193, DOC-0194).
The uncomfortable questionIf the correct address was recorded in their own system, what explains a series of mailings that systematically avoided it — except when it suited them to notify?
The ruleNotifications must be served at the known tax domicile (arts. 48 and 109-112, Law 58/2003); notification by public notice is valid only after genuine and diligent attempts (constitutional case-law, art. 24 of the Constitution); its breach entails the nullity of what was done.
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.