Censorship that his “gross negligence” facilitated eight bank transfers of public money into Hong Kong accounts

• EMT How four million euros from the Valencia bus company ended up in a bank in Hong Kong

In September 2009, the Municipal Transport Company of Valencia (EMT) was the victim of the so-called “CEO scam”. But, far from setting off all the alarms to be able to stop in time, the fraud was consumed with the theft of just over 4 million euros from the EMT, which ended up in two bank accounts. Hong Kong, Public money disappeared through eight bank transfers, without anyone noticing the cyber scam. Now, the then-director of Negotiated, Celia Zafra, will be the one who needs to get the fraud money out of her own pocket.

so they decided court of Auditors in a sentence that is not assertive but agrees with Valencia City Hall, which accused Zafra of being responsible for the fraud and therefore fired. For the Court of Auditors, the former employee bore “accounting responsibility” when he facilitated the said transfer.

He did so, pursuant to the judgment, “without informing his superiors, nor making any inquiry from him or associates or associates about the operation, process or destination of funds, the person declared responsible provided the information to the competent EMTs.” In order to authorize and order payment by the company, their signatures appear in their scanned DNI and documents”.

In this way fraudulent payment orders could be created, which “the employee himself sent to the bank for transfer, without the authorization of his superiors and without following the established payment system.”

The former board of directors was sued by the municipal company and by the public prosecutor’s office before accounting jurisdiction. The Court of Auditors agrees with the Council that his conduct was “seriously negligent”, as “he did not observe the minimum precautions that would be consistent with the principle of due diligence by the public nature of the funds managed and not a good father”. According to Article 1,104 of the Civil Code of a family of

Analyzing his behavior from these criteria, Judgment actually concludes that “the criterion of a good father – or good mother – refers to a rational or careful administrator of the family’s own resources, which when making a relevant decision.” such as buying consumer durables, home repairs, or even making a medical decision, consulting neighbors, family or friends, seeking someone who is an expert or has recent experience in the matter, or Get information. In the Internet”.

“Similarly, the conduct of an officer, an official or any careful public servant may be characterized—as opposed to severely negligent—: discretion and respect for process are the two fundamental characteristics that define one’s good professional work.” are official”, the sentence adds.

For this reason, Zafra has been sentenced to be reimbursed 4,054,971.98 euros, as well as legal interest and procedural costs. Against this decision issued prima facie, an appeal can be made to the Court of Auditors.