Action by the Bilbao Prosecutor's Office and formulation of the accusation

An indictment is measured against the documents at its disposal. This one was formulated with the administrative file and the public registers already incorporated into the case.

The two assertions that sustain the accusation

• First: the accused effectively managed Iriarte Grupo Lanzarote S.A. from 16 May 2012.
• Second: the public funds were released on the basis of fictitious invoices.

The documents available on each

• On the first: the Commercial Registry keeps the company's inscription suspended until 6 September 2012 (A.3); Apolozan's only title is the purchase of the 16th (A.2); the application is from the 15th and is signed by others (A.1); the power of representation required by the Administration does not appear to have been provided (A.4).
• On the second: the file documents two inspections of material investments prior to the payments — not a check of invoices — and technical valuations validated by the Administration (A.5, A.10).

What the brief does not contain

There is no analysis in the accusation of any of those documents: not the date of inscription, not the signature on the application, not the requirement of powers, not the inspections prior to the payments. The two assertions are formulated without confronting the material that contradicts them — material that was in the same case.

The chain, in dates

→ 29-4-2014 — complaint: the party's factual framework (A.8) → 17-10-2016 — this brief: the accusation expands with the "preconceived plan" and the fictitious invoices → 17-11-2017 — defence brief answering the accusation (DOC-0161) → 31-1-2019 — oral trial on this perimeter (A.18) → 5-4-2019 — Judgment 21/2019: the perimeter becomes proven facts (A.26)

Its projection

This brief set the object of the oral trial and the perimeter of the proven facts of Judgment 21/2019 (A.26). The comparison between its assertions and the documents cited above is the central exercise this file proposes — and which no instance records having carried out (A.29, A.31, A.38).

How to verify it

Take the two assertions and look for their documentary support in the case: a document proving management prior to September 2012, and a document refuting the two inspections prior to the payments. This file does not contain them; if they exist, they have not been produced in ten years.

Contrast with the original file

The Prosecutor's brief in the case — which handles the critical corporate dates of 16-5-2012 and 14-9-2012 — is in Bilbao Original (DOC-0134); the complete accusation phase, in the investigation volumes (DOC-0181, DOC-0182).