Copy of the criminal complaint filed on 29 April 2014 against Mr Apolozan

A criminal complaint is a party's account. This one is worth reading carefully because its account contains a fact the rest of the proceedings treated as unwritten.

The procedural act

• Filed on 29 April 2014 before Investigating Court No. 8 of Bilbao.
• Offences invoked: corporate (articles 290 to 297 of the Criminal Code) and misappropriation (article 252).
• From it derive preliminary proceedings 1447/2014 (A.9), the investigation, the oral trial and Judgment 21/2019 (A.26).

The complaint's own words

Mr Fernando Carcedo Sedano, in the name and on behalf of the company [International Technology Corp. Soft S.A.], applied to the Basque Government for the inclusion of an investment project in the GAUZATU programme…
— Statement of facts of the complaint, as recorded in the proceedings

The management whose authorship the proceedings later attributed to the accused appears here, in the brief that opens the case, assigned to the complainant. The fact coincides with the signature on the application (A.1) and with the absence of powers of representation documented by the Administration (A.4).

The chain, in dates

→ 15-5-2012 — GAUZATU application signed by the future complainants (A.1) → 29-4-2014 — this complaint, attributing to the accused the management its own account assigns to the complainant → 18-7-2014 — opening of Preliminary Proceedings 1447/2014 (A.9) → 26-1-2015 — examination as a defendant

What the investigation did with it

The complaint set the factual framework of the case. The subsequent steps (A.9) did not confront that framework with the available public documents — the registry chronology (A.2, A.3), the requirement of powers (A.4), the audits and payments (A.5) — and the proceedings advanced to the oral trial with the party's account turned into facts.

Is there an ordinary explanation?

That one shareholder should bring a complaint against another is frequent, and Carcedo's standing as company representative could be disputed in law. What is singular here is substantive, not formal: the complainant relates as his own the administrative management that constitutes the core of what is charged to the accused. That sentence is in the document and can be read.

How to verify it

Open the complaint and locate in its statement of facts who applied for the inclusion of the project in the GAUZATU programme. Then compare with the signature on the application (A.1).

Contrast with the original file

The original complaint, as it entered the duty court, is in Bilbao Original (DOC-0172), together with the subsequent briefs of the complainants' representation (DOC-0143). Its two defects of origin — non-existent company and lack of powers — are verified against A.1, A.3 and A.4.