The lack of control in cash handling of the PSOE complicates the procedural horizon of political formation. Neither the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office nor Judge Santiago Pedraz support the Popular Party’s request to charge him in the sewer case; now there is “multiple indications” They put him on the spot. One of the most notable – in the absence of carrying out new procedures – is the fact that the alleged leader of the plot, Santos Cerdán, made payments to Leire Díez through two overlapping companies. This is a relevant point since the party would be aware of these events.
To clarify these extremes, researchers have promoted a series of asset investigation proceedings (among them they have demanded from Ferraz the list of lawyers with whom he has worked since 2021) and, when they obtain this, they will agree on a new round of statements. Anti-Corruption considers it crucial to question Santos Cerdán, since he has not appeared since his indictment. It also requests that Leire Díez (alleged coordinator of the sewers) be summoned; to former socialist councilor Gaspar Zarrías and Juan Manuel Serrano; former president of the Post Office and who was Pedro Sánchez’s chief of staff before he arrived at Moncloa.
In their writing in which they rule out imputing the PSOE, they explain that “new data” have appeared that would confirm the “concealment of certain payments”; specifically those made to Leire Díez and the lawyers accused in this case. The prosecutors in the case maintain that, from the statement given by manager Ana María Fuentes, “it seems to be evident that “There was no control mechanism.” about the management that Santos Cerdán, then “number three” of the formation, did with the party’s money. Fuentes, who was charged with allegedly falsifying covert payments to Leire Díez, was not able to justify in court the services provided by Jacobo Teijelo and Ismael Oliver (the former a lawyer for Santos Cerdán and the latter a former lawyer for Koldo García).
The manager’s statement
The manager explained that the then Secretary of Organization hired them “with absolute freedom” and that the only thing he provided was the invoice for some services that the Prosecutor’s Office doubt that they would have lent themselveseither. It should be remembered that Cerdán paid the plumber 4,000 euros per month from party funds through Zaño Sociedad Consultora SL (of former socialist councilor Gaspar Zarrías). Likewise, it is clear that she was the recipient of part of the funds that the PSOE sent to Estudio Jurídico I. Olvier and Partners, of Ismael Oliver.
For all these reasons, the prosecutors in the case estimate that, from the evidence in the summary, an indicative conclusion is reached that the PSOE, through Santos Cerdán, “would have made its logistical and financial infrastructure available to the criminal organization,” they maintain. In this regard, they add that the party made sewer meetings possible in Ferraz, “and, what is more relevant, financing the allegedly criminal activity through intermediary companies”. Thus, although the request for the indictment of the PSOE by the PP is considered premature, the truth is that the evidence points to the alleged involvement of Ferraz in this plot that tried to torpedo legal cases that affect the PSOE and its leader.
Did the PSOE obtain a benefit?
In that sense, it turns out “particularly relevant” to determine whether the PSOE obtained a benefit with these efforts. The jurisprudence – recalls the Prosecutor’s Office – establishes that it is not enough that employees of the entity have committed a crime. To act against the legal entity there must be a “direct or indirect” benefit for the entity. In that sense, investigators are already tracking payments and investigating Ferraz’s contracts with lawyers since 2021, in order to clarify whether or not they were linked to Leire Díez who, in their multiple meetings, said that the party had put her in charge and that she acted for “1”, in reference to Pedro Sánchez.
“The use of organization funds to satisfy payments linked to alleged corruption crimes constitutes a indication of singular relevance to resolve the issue that we analyze here, but the criminal accusation of the legal entity must be constructed autonomously and not as a reflex consequence of the responsibility of its organization secretary and the manager (…). The investigation (…) must reconstruct the circuit of decision, authorization, execution and accounting of said payments, the controls existing at that time and the specific benefit that was intended to be obtained for the organization,” the prosecutors conclude.