The Court of Valencia sentenced the former president of the Provincial Council, Alfonso Rus, to five years in prison as the criminal responsible for an ongoing crime of embezzlement of public funds, in the medial competition of an ongoing crime of prevarication; and both in medial competition with another continuing crime of document falsification committed by a public official. The former president, also of the PP, was recognized as having mitigated the undue delays, but he was also sentenced to disqualification from public office for five years and must answer with the also convicted Máximo Caturla, Juan Sanchís Torres and Manuel Gómez Pérez for the payment to Ciegsa. of 356,554.36 euros in civil liability, as well as 57,000 euros to Divalterra.
The self-proclaimed “money junkie”, Marcos Benavent, was also sentenced to five years in prison for embezzlement, prevarication and falsehood, as well as Máximo Caturla, who was sentenced to the same sentence.
The Second Section of the Provincial Court of Valencia convicted 19 of the 25 people accused of irregularities in the hiring of managers, advisors and workers of the public companies Ciegsa and Imelsa between 2004 and 2015 and acquitted the other six. , among them, the former councilor and former deputy delegate of the socialist government, Rafael Rubio.
On the other defendants convicted, the Chamber imposed penalties ranging from four months of suspension from work or public office to four years and four months in prison and 17 years and six months of disqualification, by to commit the crimes of document forgery, as well as the necessary accomplices of embezzlement and prevarication.
The trial for these events was held between January 23 and March 2 of this year and the sentence, which consists of 156 pages and announced this Friday to the parties, can be appealed before the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice in the Valencian Community.
The judicial resolution assesses for all the prisoners to mitigate the circumstances of the undue delays, and for some of them also to confess and repair the damage, and establishes a compensation of up to 655,310 euros in favor of Ciegsa and more than 100,000 for Divalterra company of Imelsa) as individual civil liability.
The magistrates considered the hiring of workers in these companies -Ciegsa, dependent on the Generalitat, and Imelsa, of the Provincial Council- which proved without “any selection process based on the principles of publicity, equality , merit or capacity” that happened to them and without responding in many cases to a “real need” of the companies themselves.
In fact, some of these contracts were made in consideration of the relationship of those hired by the Popular Party, to which the main defendants belong, or their friendly relationship with the predecessors or with other members of the same political party.
In addition, some of the employees never provided services or did any work for public companies, even though those responsible for hiring signed certificates saying the opposite to “give the appearance of legality” of employment contracts.
One of the workers is a footballer from the Xàtiva Olympic Club who was hired as an advisor to Imelsa by Marcos Benavent at the request of Alfonso Rus, also president of that sports entity, to pay him his emoluments as a player.
Finally, the Court also declared that the receipt of variable remuneration for productivity or allowances in Imelsa was proven without justification.
The Court rejected the annulment of the charges due to the use as a source of evidence of a pendrive with audio files of conversations between Marcos Benavent and other interlocutors recorded by himself and that his former father-in-law copied without permission. and handed over to a provincial deputy. , who in turn brought it to the attention of the Prosecutor’s Office.
The Chamber determined that the right to secrecy of communications was not violated and “no violation can be attributed to the bodies in charge of the investigation,” because the criminal process “was developed without violation of fundamental rights or imbalance between of the parties.” .