- Courts Supreme frees former board high officials from fraud of training courses
- justice Fraud of Board’s training courses: Crorepati fund without control
The third division of the Court of Seville, which last winter put on trial for the offenses allegedly continued prejudice and embezzlement Under the management of the Andalusian Center for Environmental Training Consortium for Sustainable Development (Formades), based in Almonte (Huelva), has sentenced its former manager to four and a half years in prison. Ana Maria Orihuela, Son jailed for two years Manuel Ramrez Orihuela, and his nephew, Cristóbal Ojeda Orihuela; And also two and a half years to Juan Francisco Milan, a veterinarian and teacher at that center.
This is how it appears in a sentence issued last June 7 by the Third Section of the Seville Court issued by the TSJA Communication Office, which specifies that the former manager of Formads, in particular, has been declared the author of a continuing crime of bias. in competition of mediocrity with the offense of embezzlement of public moneyHe was sentenced to four and a half years in prison and eight and a half years of special disqualification.
He is also sentenced to indemnify the Junta de Andaluca. 40.078,16 euro and in relation to the amount of fraud committed by each of the accused, jointly and separately, which reaches the global figure of 899,623.94 Euro.
His son has been declared an essential accomplice in the continuing crime of embezzlement of public funds, being sentenced to two years in prison, four years of special disqualification and indemnification to the Board with 452,895.82 euros; Whereas his nephew has been sentenced to the same prison sentence and disqualification, with the same type, but with a compensation of 38,495.94 euros for the board.
Juan Francisco Milan Lozano, vet and teacher at the unit and accused has also been declared collaborator needed For the continuing offense of bias in competition of the median with the continuing offense of embezzlement of public funds, a sentence of two and a half years in prison, four and a half years of special disqualification and a compensation of 408,232.18 euros in favor of the Board.
The sentence proves that the former manager of Formads promoted the “irregular” recruitment of the rest of the defendants “with the aim of providing them with an illegal pecuniary advantage.”
In this sense, it indicates that the accused “not only ignored the contract rules, but also” contracts awarded without prior bidding, I acknowledge that relatives and acquaintances submitted invoices that do not in any way comply with the current law, in such a way that they neither describe the genuineness of the service nor can it be known that it was done and how it was done; and divide the contracts so that they do not exceed the 12,000 euro limit for the provision of services”.
“By the manager’s own decision,” the services were contracted out with his own son, Manuel Ramárez Orihuela, who was hired “directly” to perform the maintenance work and who took the total from June 24, 2008 to November 22, 2008. As of 2011, 70 transfers had been received. for an amount of 452,895.82 euros, which “answers the bill which the accused had issued against the consortium as a natural person for various acts, acts which cannot be partially specified or recognized “.
This, when there is “no record or in which center of the consortium the accused has committed these acts or even though he may have performed them in full”, according to the third section of the Court.
third part of the hearing It also proves that the defendant’s nephew, Cristábal Ojeda Orihuela, was hired as a security guard “without any tender or contract or offers from various providers, without justification for his actions and the amounts received”. So that the former Managing Director Formades “decided to provide him night guard services in order to provide him with an exorbitant, disproportionate and unfair pecuniary advantage”, and all this “in connivance” with his nephew, whom he had been known for with effect from April 21, 2010. As of 2 November 2011, 21 transfers were received. 38,495.94 for a total amount of Euro.
For defendant Juan Francisco Milan, the Court indicates that, in general agreement with the manager of the consortium, “agreed on the provision of veterinary services by dividing them, thus avoiding reaching the limits of the law of public contracts.” “, receiving a total of 136 transfers from November 15, 2007 to May 30, 2012 for a total amount of 408,232.18 Euros.
The Court also points out “other irregular outflows of money” and proves that the accused “in the exercise of his powers, ordered payments and services of a very diverse nature in any manner whatsoever relating to the objects of the consortium”, therefore that it ordered that an item of 40,078.16 Euros be included in the concept of “dissemination and publicity”.
With regard to the distribution of this item, the Court reports that the convicted person was appointed in 2009. Incorporate King Melchor by the City Council of AlmonteSo that, “on the occasion of such festivities and on account of their participation in them they had to contribute capital to buy gifts, candies and others, they made gifts and payments connected with their participation in these festivities with money from the consortium”. As expenses for the purchase of gifts and candy for the Three Kings Parade amounting to 6,555.15 Euros, while “from consortium funds he paid for the ‘Breakfast for the Three Kings Parade’, which cost 600 Euros, which he had previously corrected.” as the board ‘Protocol attention'”.
Similarly, it has been declared proven that they allocated 9,038.62 euros from this item for “food of all kinds” and included 14 bills for advertising and dissemination “that have no relation to training activity, such as advertising de formed”. with 12 futsal kits amounting to 573.50 euros and another amounting to 6,555.15 euros for treats and toys”.
The Court thus concludes that the whole Lack of justification for subsidy given Two Formed amounted to 1,320,850 euros, noting that “the irregularities in the contract of services with the defendants were intended to provide them with pecuniary benefits with a consequent diversion of funds from subsidies”.
according to the norms of