The Villarejo Case Judge has ratified its decision to extend the imputation of the former president of BBVA Francisco González to a crime of disloyal administration within the Villarejo case.
The magistrate of the National Holder García-Castellón rejects the FG resource against the 20th of July that expanded that crime its imputation in the case in which he was already being investigated by the contracting of Commissioner José Manuel Villarejo.
The new imputation affected a “suspicious operational accurate” related to the valuation of the acquisition of a farm for a private basis.
FG would have used bank services for this, despite being a personal matter.
When in his day he was already asked with it, FG explained that he had only asked him to give him an information about the farm that only required access to data that is open to the public and that he had not asked anyone to be paid – in this case
Villarejo- for that work.
González argued in its resource the absence of concretion of the facts, the lack of motivation of the car and, in any case, the prescription of them.
In addition, he invoked that there had been no prior complaint of offended or injured in relation to the valuation of the farm, required requirement, according to González’s defense, to impute the delegation crime.
In relation to the lack of concretion of the facts and their prescription, the judge explains in his writing that the investigation is at an “embryonic” phase that does not require a full requirement of determination and concretion.
“It is sufficient a succinct exposure of the events investigated,” says the judge, a requirement that he considers has been fulfilled in the recrount “and is therefore essential to take a declaration to González in order to complete the factual account”.
Regarding prescription, Judge stands out, as the Prosecutor’s Office when he asked to reject the appeal, that Villarejo contracts occurred before this one investigated and afterwards, so there could be a criminal continuity and connection with other crimes that
Imposed to give this issue prescribed.
The judge also rejects the argument made by the defense of Gonzalez that, as it is a supposed crime of disloyal administration, the prior complaint of the offended or injured was necessary.
The car recalls that the law is also clear when withdrawing that requirement if the fact affects the general interests or a plurality of people.
He points out that as it is a great relevant banking entity that is listed on the IBEX 35 with a multitude of shareholders and one of the main banks of the country, “the reputational risk of such behaviors if it affects, directly, to general interests
Of those, as well as the general interest. ”
For all this, he concludes that the existence of a prior complaint would not be needed to investigate these facts.
The new imputation can still be appealed to the criminal room of the national audience.
