The Prosecutor’s Office Anti-corruption closes ranks with the Judicial Police that investigates the cause of the PSOE sewers. The prosecutors appointed in the procedure oppose the request of the plumber Leire Díez and Jacobo Teijelo that be prevented to the Central Operational Unit (UCO) of the Civil Guard access the statements key to the cause. The Public Ministry specifies that they must have access to the proceedings since it is the unit designated to investigate these events.
In their writing, collected by LA RAZÓN, the Anti-Corruption prosecutors make it clear that the diligence requested by the investigators is “absolutely conducive” to advance this cause.” According to what they indicate, the agents must be able to know this material to “be able to assess the contradictions or new elements revealed by witnesses or investigated”.
The Prosecutor’s Office responds in this way to Jacobo Teijelo (Santos Cerdán’s lawyer) and Leire Díez, who oppose the agents being able to access the summary of the procedure being followed in the National Court. It should be remembered that it focuses on the maneuvers that he promoted from the PSOE sewer to neutralize judicial processes that affected the party and its leader, Pedro Sánchez. In fact, One of the plumber’s priority objectives was to act against the UCO for being the one who has led the investigations against David Sánchez, Begoña Gómez or the former State Attorney General Álvaro García.
Closing ranks with the UCO
Now, as a defendant, she returns to the charge against the Judicial Police. The events date back to September 23, when Pedraz gave the green light to the agents, who asked for all the statements that have been given in court. “whether investigated or witnesses” to “be able to delve deeper into the different lines of investigation” that the Civil Guard currently has open.
Pedraz approved the request, since the agents need to know the summary to advance their investigations and propose new proceedings. However, Teijelo appealed his decision, considering that only the instructor can know the entire cause. Her claim has now been joined by plumber Leire Díez, who adds that the judge is the only one who “has the capacity and power to evaluate the investigation procedures carried out.”
As specified, the UCO is a “mere servant” of the judge so, in no case, “has the status of co-instructor.” “The UCO must be limited a, with the investigative material that it originally possesses, report to the investigating judge so that he can evaluate it (…) but in no case will it be the other way around, that is, in no case should the investigating body report to the UCO so that it can continue investigating,” his defense reasoned.
The judge and the Prosecutor’s Office, with the Civil Guard
However, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the investigating magistrate have defended the role of the UCO, also recalling that lThe Constitution (article 126) gives you the power to investigate the crime under the dependence of the judge and the Prosecutor’s Office. Similarly, article 282 of the Criminal Procedure Law attributes to it the carrying out of the necessary procedures, while the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court makes it clear that the Judicial Police “does not constitute a mere executing body lacking initiative”, but rather has the own faculties research.
Furthermore, as the prosecutors recall, The procedural system “expressly” admits that it is the investigating police unit who explains to the investigator the status of his investigations and requests the judicial proceedings he considers necessary for their continuation. Thus, the Judicial Police may ask the investigator to provide a copy of the testimonies taken when they are necessary to advance the investigation. “It is not about recognizing an autonomous and indiscriminate police right of access to the judicial file, but about admit its functional legitimacy to request documentation that is connected to the investigation, it is always up to the Judge to decide on its origin,” says Anti-Corruption.
Pedraz, for his part, has rejected Teijelo’s appeal, ratifying what was agreed on September 23. As specified, the fact that the UCO requests a copy of certain statements “does not constitute any irregularity”. “It is evident that the testimony of a witness or the statements made by an investigated person within the framework of a judicial procedure can serve to clarify the facts investigated, not only to ‘request proceedings to be proposed,'” he concludes.
Sewer fence
The procedure led by Pedraz began due to alleged irregularities in the awarding of public contracts (especially from SEPI) in exchange for the collection of alleged commissions. The focus was initially placed on Leire Díez, Vicente Fernández (former vice president of SEPI) and Antxon Alonso, a businessman friend of Santos Cerdán. However, this case has added to the proceedings opened in a Madrid court due to the plumber’s maneuvers to act against judges, prosecutors and the Civil Guard.
In this sense, it has been accused Santos Cerdanto the lawyers Teijelo and Ismael Oliver; to the general director of the Civil Guard, Mercedes González; to the Deputy Operational Director (DAO), Manuel Llamas; or Juan Manuel Serrano, former president of Correos and former chief of staff of Pedro Sánchez before his arrival at Moncloa. It should be noted that these proceedings also investigate whether the UCO agents appointed in cases that affect Sánchez’s environment suffered pressure of any kind to prevent these investigations from going ahead.
In fact, one of Leire Díez’s main objectives in his intention to boycott these procedures was Antonio Balas, the lieutenant who heads the Department of Economic Research and Anti-Corruption of the UCO. In several of his meetings in search of dirt against this unit he even said that I wanted him “dead”in reference to being removed from especially sensitive cases against the Government.
In addition, Pedraz maintains a separate piece in this case in which he investigates the PSOE payments to Leire Díez and the accused lawyers. The Popular Party – which is the legal leader in the case – recently requested that the party be charged with five crimes but neither the Prosecutor’s Office nor the judge is moving, at least for now. Anti-corruption has requested that the defendants who have not yet appeared in court be summoned, although it admits that there are “multiple indications” that implicate Ferraz in these fact. The UCO is also leading this investigation.