Complaint before the Alicante Prosecutor's Office against Investigating Court No. 1

This complaint points to the quietest mechanism of the tax front: the conversion of one party's figures into judicial truth by simple reference.

The complaint

• Filed on 21 October 2021 before the Public Prosecutor's Office of Alicante.
• Object: the action of Investigating Court No. 1, which held as valid some 125,000 euros of debt claimed by the Alicante Treasury on the basis of the investigations and the report of the Treasury itself (A.48).
• The documentary context available on that date: the costs expert report signed since July 2019 (A.49) and the limitation calendar of Article 66 of the General Tax Act (A.40).

The technical point the complaint fixes

To validate the denounced party's figure by citing the denounced party is not to verify: it is to transcribe. The complaint documents that the investigation carried out no expert examination of its own, did not confront the existing one and did not examine the out-of-time nature — three omissions verifiable by reading the corresponding order (A.48).

The complete series, in dates

→ 19-12-2016 — complaint against the Head of Collection: "return it to the complainant" (A.43) → 7-8-2018 — complaint with three communications requested — anti-fraud, General Council of the Judiciary, Romania — none carried out (A.58) → 28-8-2021 — complaint against Investigating Court No. 3: the Prosecutor's Office invokes the Supreme Court and refers nothing to it (A.56) → 21-10-2021 — this complaint against Investigating Court No. 1 Four complaints in five years: not one step, nor one reasoned filing on record.

The fate of the complaint

Like its parallels (A.43, A.56, A.58): with no steps on record, with no reasoned filing on record. The series of prosecutorial complaints of the Alicante front — four, with dates and registrations — ended complete in the same silence.

How to verify it

Read the order of Court No. 1 (A.48) and underline its factual source; then look for the court's own expert examination. One source, no expert examination: what the complaint pointed to is verified in the denounced order itself.