Requirement and Lack of powers of representation

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

Requirement and Lack of powers of representation

When an Administration requires a document, it is because it does not have it. This annex reproduces the requirement the GAUZATU programme technicians addressed to the file after examining the May 2012 application.

The document and its dates

  • Dated Bilbao, 11 June 2012; entry-register stamp of 14 June 2012.
  • Its point 3 (page 35 of the file) requires: a copy of the power of representation in favour of the person who filed the application.
  • In the file there is no record that the requirement was met: no power of attorney, mandate or authorisation from Apolozan appears on any page.

The sequence, in dates

15-5-2012 — application filed without proving representation (A.1) → 11-6-2012 — the technicians require the power (entry register: 14-6-2012) → 9-2012 — the company is registered (A.3) and processing continues → 2013 — audits and payments executed (A.5) — the requirement remains unanswered in the file

Its value as contrast

The Bilbao court held proven the existence of authorisation and management by Apolozan (A.26). This page proves that the very Administration instructing the file lacked that authorisation, requested it in writing and did not obtain it. It is not a party document: it is the Basque Government's internal control placing the gap on record.

Is there an ordinary explanation?

Remedy requirements are administrative routine, and many are met late or remedied by other means. That is why the relevant fact is not the requirement: it is its subsequent silence. If the power existed, it would be on record — in the administrative file, in the criminal case or in this portal. It is on record in none of them.

How to verify it

Open the document; read point 3. Then look, on any page of this file, for the power required. That fruitless search is the proof.

Contrast with the original file

Page 35 with the requirement is in the original GAUZATU file, part 1 (DOC-0136), in Bilbao Original. Search the three parts of the file (DOC-0136 to DOC-0138) for the power required: that fruitless search is the proof.

The factThe SPRI itself required in writing, on 11 June 2012, the power of representation that would cover the application. The power does not appear to have been provided — and the aid was processed and paid anyway.
The questionIf the Administration requested the power and the file does not contain it, on what document did the court hold the authorisation proven?

Documentary evidence · A.4 · 11 June 2012 · Main documentary reconstruction
EuroFraud case file · every statement links to its document (A.X / DOC-XXXX). Evidentiary material; every person named is presumed innocent.