Complaint against the SPRI Bilbao and the Deputy Minister for Industry

The chronology of the complaints matters: it establishes who alerted whom, and when. This document fixes the first point of that series.

The document and its content

A formal complaint filed in October 2012 before the SPRI and the Deputy Minister for Industry — those responsible for the programme processing the aid. It sets out: the use of the complainant's identity in the file, the loan managed in his name without his authorisation, the audits that validated the investment and the use of the technology project in dealings of which he was unaware.

The complainant's position on that date

The person who signs this complaint is the same one who: did not sign the application (A.1), did not grant the power required by the Administration (A.4) and had just discovered the real state of the company he had entered in May (A.2, A.3). The document proves his immediate reaction through the correct institutional channel.

What is on record after the complaint

• No internal investigation opened as a result of it.
• No precautionary suspension of the denounced file.
• No referral to the Prosecutor's Office by the receiving bodies.
• On record, instead, the continuation of the file up to the non-compliance declaration of October 2013 (A.6) — issued against the complainant.

The order of the facts, in dates

→ 29-10-2012 — Apolozan denounces the handling of the file before the SPRI and the Deputy Minister → 22-10-2013 — the denounced Administration declares him responsible for the non-compliance (A.6) → 29-4-2014 — the file's managers bring a complaint against him (A.8) The order is verifiable by the dates of the three documents: the one who alerted first ended up accused by those alerted.

How to verify it

Compare the date of this complaint with that of the non-compliance order (A.6) and that of the criminal complaint (A.8). Who alerted first is not an interpretation: it is a calendar fact.

Contrast with the original file

This complaint's judicial path is in Bilbao Original: the order of Investigating Court No. 4 (DOC-0122) and the complainant's June 2018 brief pressing the matter (DOC-0141) — six years insisting that the managers be investigated.