The owner of Forestalia, Fernando Samper, has accused the Prosecutor’s Office and the investigating judge of the case, Juan José Cortés, of undertaking a “prospective research” against him. The one who was president until a little over a week ago of the company that today finds itself in the eye of the hurricane has presented an appeal for reform before the Court of Instruction Number 1 of Teruel to request the annulment of the case, alleging various procedural irregularities.
The reform appeal to which this newspaper has had access is directed, specifically, against four resolutions: three orders of extension of investigation and the order of entry and search of the offices of the former president of Forestalia in Zaragoza, Madrid and another dozen locations.
The defense of the investigated in addition to alleging that the irregularities exposed in the complaint that give rise to the case are “non-existent”details that precautionary measures have been issued by court order against his client and a series of records based on the content of a complaint different from the one that gave rise to the original investigation.
It must be remembered that in this procedure there are two complaints: on the one hand, the original one of the case filed by the Teruel Existence Support Association and, on the other, a subsequent complaint related to the Maestrazgo Cluster, presented by Vox.
The first emphasizes the alleged irregularities of the Aragonese Institute of Environmental Management (INAGA) in wind and photovoltaic parks, and the second the alleged illicit practices in a macro project of up to twenty wind farms. For the businessman’s lawyers, criminal lawyers Enrique Trebolle and Francisco García Berenguer, both complaints have no connection.
The instructor of the procedure investigates an alleged plot of environmental corruption linked to the granting and processing of licenses from the Ministry of Ecological Transition for wind and photovoltaic projects, especially in Teruel. in exchange for illicit payments or considerations.
The case points to possible crimes of environmental prevarication, bribery, money laundering and membership in a criminal organization committed by Fernando Samper and a high-ranking official in the Ecological Transition portfolio, then directed by the socialist Teresa Ribera.
The Central Operational Unit for the Environment (UCOMA) of the Civil Guard, in fact, in its latest report grants Samper a crime of bribery – among others – to ensure that he delivered “economic benefits to a public official to ensure arbitrary administrative resolutions in favor of his projects”in reference to Eugenio Domínguez, also investigated in the case.
The researchers explain that Forestalia had “privileged” treatment in the processing of environmental files, obtaining favorable Environmental Impact Statements (DIA) despite having eliminated a large number of technical deficiencies.
The alleged benefit delivered allowed the official -Eugenio Domínguez- to participate in the property of the commercial promoters whose projects he himself had to authorize or supervise.”
But in addition, the agents explain that once the public officials left the Administration, Samper hired them with management positions in the Forestalia Group, which in the opinion of the Civil Guard It is interpreted as “a reward for favored treatment granted.”
It should also be noted that the Fernando Sol holding company and related companies have shared domicile and operations with vehicles belonging to the family of the Secretary of State Susana Sumelzo and with structures connected to Antxon Alonso, the partner of the former Secretary of Organization of the PSOE Santos Cerdán.
Through companies such as Sumelzo SA and other wind vehicles, they exchange shares and positions with Forestalia and companies around Samper, configuring a network of shell companies for park projects in Aragon. The link between Forestalia and the Sumelzo family dates back, in fact, to 2017.
The arguments of Samper’s defense
Even with everything, the defense of the businessman requests the case file and, if the magistrate does not decide so, at least the suspension of the procedure until certain various administrative disputes on which the Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid must decide are resolved.
They consider that The legal period of one year of instruction has already been met, which expired in June of last year, and therefore it is not “justified” that the procedure be maintained beyond that date. and, therefore, that the registrations that were made later are considered valid.
Regarding the alleged procedural irregularities, Samper’s defense assures that when the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the declaration of complexity and the extension, no pre-procedural diligence was incorporated into the case, apart from the initial complaint and that, in addition, it did so by clinging to legislation already repealed after the reform of article 321 of the LECrim.
“There was no reason to decree the extension of the investigation, especially when this is done only 9 days after the initiation,” they express while detailing that There was, for the moment, “no evidence” found but mere “vagueities and generalities.”
It also states that a series of “proceedings and reports have been incorporated into the procedure that do not reach any conclusion, presenting a markedly prospective nature” and that the Public Ministry has asked the Civil Guard to generically investigate “each and every aspect related” to the Environmental Impact Statement licenses without any type of “concretion.”
For Samper’s criminal lawyers, the Prosecutor’s Office and, therefore, the investigating judge They have ordered the agents to investigate “everything (even pension plans and electricity consumption) to see what comes out.”
The defense maintains, in any case, throughout the more than 50 pages of the appeal, that the investigation has obtained “nothing”, only “conjectures and speculations.” And all this, behind the “backs” of the lawyers.
Thus, they maintain that None of the Civil Guard reports provided sufficient concrete evidence to justify such an “invasive” measure. in reference to the records, which he claims goes against the guarantees of legal security.
They even attack the Armed Institute by alleging that they intend to justify some evidence based on journalistic news that appeared in the media and that this cannot justify “the judicial search of his private or professional home”.