“The evidence given greater incriminating value by the allegations of possible collusion between the defendant and the Minorbis company is neither conclusive nor convincing, since there are doubts about its reality,” concludes the decision of the Third Department of the Provincial Court of Seville. This verdict is part of the court’s decision to acquit the 16 people accused of alleged irregularities in the international tender for the award of the Aznalcóllar mining project in the province of Seville. As reported by the Supreme Court of Andalusia (TSJA) in a press release, the decision was signed on December 4th and communicated to interested parties this Friday.
According to the verdict, the defendants – including officials and technicians of the Autonomous Administration – were acquitted of the crimes of influence peddling, continuous administrative fraud, embezzlement of public funds, fraud, negotiations prohibited by officials and environmental adulteration. The complaints were the result of the actions of the companies Emerita Resources España SLU, SC Andalucía Mining and the Provincial Federation of Ecologists in Action, as reported by the TSJA. In addition, the court annulled the civil liability claims against the Junta de Andalucía and several companies linked to the mining process, including Minera Los Frailes SL, AMC Mining Iberia SLU, Grupo México, Minorbis SL and Magtel SL
The wording of the judgment indicates that the assertion of the allegations lacked consistency and reiterated that the allegations made by these entities were based on positions that, in the court’s opinion, “lacked the slightest consistency, from which it follows that they had to be aware of the unfairness and unfairness of their position, especially after the development of the trial in which the possible assessment of a crime was clearly distorted in the actions of the defendants,” says the judgment compiled by the court. TSJA. In fact, the public prosecutor’s office joined the motion for acquittal for all defendants.
In addition, the court ordered the three plaintiffs to pay the costs of the proceedings. This ruling takes into account the review of “connivance” between the accusers and assumes that this action caused “moral and economic harm” to the now exonerated people because they were subjected to a process that the court described as unfounded, according to the TSJA media. In its considerations, the judgment states that “the allegations of greater seriousness (bribery, unfair administration) initially raised in the preliminary conclusions” were not supported by the results of the judicial investigation.
Regarding the technical and expert reports used in the investigation, the court emphasized that the prosecutor’s acquittal decision was supported by documents of “particular consistency” and specifically cited the report of the auditors of the General Intervention of the State Administration (IGAE) and the Central Operational Unit (UCO) of the Guardia Civil. Both reports, as highlighted by the court and noted by the TSJA, did not indicate the existence of criminal conduct by the officers and other defendants. The court also highlighted the professionalism and impartiality observed in the involvement of officials and technicians at the various stages of the mining procurement process.
In the decision, the judges stated that there was no evidence of conduct intended to exert pressure on or influence the decision-making of the bodies responsible for the competition. No evidence was found to support the hypothesis that the defendants directly or indirectly used their positions to favor certain companies or that they tried to change the assessments and technical proposals intended to decide the award, the Provincial Court of Seville explained, as reported by the TSJA. The UCO report also reflects that “no communication or document has been discovered that allows us to conclude that there is influence over the members of the Technical Committee or the Tender Committee in favor of one or other bidding company.”
According to the TSJA media, the process in this case did not result in any notices, instructions or pressure on the bodies evaluating the process. There was also no evidence of promises or gestures aimed at favoring specific participants, nor was there evidence of economic or professional advantages granted in return for achieving a result in the mining competition. The court rejected that there was an agreement between the accused brothers, representatives of Magtel and officials to appropriate the mining reserve that was the subject of the competition.
According to the Court, the technical assessment carried out by the officials and members of the Board of Directors and the Technical Commission was adapted to appropriate criteria and to previously established parameters which were not used by the tenderers. The technical assessments were supported by highly qualified experts, whose interventions contradicted the reports prepared by experts on behalf of the allegations, as set out in the decision published by the TSJA.
With regard to some of the specific facts alleged in the allegations, such as the alleged meeting on April 11, 2014 at the Emerita offices in Seville – a meeting which, if it had taken place, would have called into question the independence of the process – the court concluded that the holding of the meeting could not be proven with the necessary certainty. Nor was any connection found between these hypothetical meetings and actions affecting the mining procurement process. The court assured that the suspicions and speculations were dispelled after analyzing the facts and the statements of those involved, supported by the documents and witness statements presented during the trial.
The judgment reported by the TSJA indicates that this judgment can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
About The Author
