One of the elements on the negotiation table between the PSOE and Junts in the run-up to the investiture is to stop the return of the alleged public money that was used to pay for the process claimed by the Court of Auditors. A question that seems complicated to solve, but which would be essential for the post-convergents to end up saying yes to Pedro Sánchez becoming president again.
Sources consulted by La Vanguardia explain that, even if an amnesty law were finally approved for crimes related to the independence process, there are doubts that it could benefit the case pursued in the Court of Auditors, since it is a refund for the misuse of public funds. Since it is not a crime or a penalty, but a mere return, these sources claim that it seems complicated to be protected from the effects of a hypothetical amnesty.
These are very high financial amounts that the Prosecutor’s Office reduced from almost 10 million euros to 3.4 million, which those responsible for ordering the alleged payments for the 1-O referendum should return jointly and solidarity, and also external action to publicize the process. Among those affected are Carles Puigdemont, Artur Mas and Oriol Junqueras, in addition to thirty former senior government officials.
Sources in the case recall that the matter is in a very advanced state. On November 17, the accounting trial of the reinstatement procedure will be held, in which the interrogations that were admitted in the previous hearing will be conducted and the conclusions of all parties will be presented. These same sources explain that a possible solution would be for the Prosecutor’s Office to withdraw the claim to further reduce the money they are being asked for.
However, this option does not guarantee that the court will grant the request for a reduction by the Prosecutor’s Office, because in the case it is personified as a public prosecution Societat Civil Catalana, which will always be able to keep the initial amount it claims of 5 million euros against eleven former high officials
The defense is studying what other formulas they can use to prevent the main pro-independence leaders from having to face the alleged use of money from the coffers of the Generalitat to sponsor the process with their personal assets. Councilor Elena Hernáez will have to set the sentence. His decision can be appealed and it is in this second phase, according to some sources, when there could be some room for manoeuvre. If not, it would be necessary to leave all the letters to the Constitutional Court, with the previous passage through the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Supreme Court.
This cause is divided into two parts. On the one hand, it is decided whether the highest officials of the Government in 2017 must return the money that was allegedly used to organize and celebrate the referendum of 1-O.
The Supreme Court, in its 2019 ruling in which it convicted former vice president Junqueras, and eight other people for a crime of sedition in competition with another of embezzlement of public funds, already certified that improper use had been made of public money to organize an illegal activity such as a self-determination referendum.
What the Criminal Chamber of the High Court then did was to leave the amount to be determined in the hands of the Court of Auditors so that it would be returned. To this piece is added another accounting case opened by the auditing body on the external action of the Generalitat, through which public funds would have been used to promote the process abroad.
The thirty defendants managed to overcome the first onslaught after the Court of Auditors accepted the endorsement of the Catalan Institute of Finance (ICF) to cover the bail of 5.4 million euros set by the instructor of the affair
This guarantee was granted after the Generalitat itself approved by decree law a rule to allow it. Initially, the delegated investigator of the case rejected it with the argument that the ICF could not vouch for the defendants – among whom there are Puigdemont and Artur Mas – because their action was malicious, not imprudent. Nevertheless, the Chamber of Justice of the audit court ruled in favor of the defendants and warned that the decree was in force, and therefore, that its legality could not be questioned.
However, the decree determined that the ICF would only guarantee the bail, so that it became the patrimonial responsibility of each of the defendants if they were ultimately convicted. If they are declared responsible, they will have to return all the money with their own assets to the Generalitat, even if it is not considered harmed.
