The defense of the former president of the Junta de Andalucía Jose Antonio Grinan He has asked the Supreme Court to acquit him of the crimes of prevarication and embezzlement to which he was convicted in the ERE case. “He who cannot decide on the destination of the funds cannot embezzle,” said lawyer José María Calero.
The ruling in the case of the ERE was devastating and condemned the two former socialist presidents of the Andalusian Government investigated. Manuel Chaves received a sentence of nine years of special disqualification for a continued crime of prevarication and Griñán six years and two days in prison and 15 years and two days of absolute disqualification for embezzlement of public funds and prevarication. Both appealed the judgment of the High Court.
This Wednesday the public hearing of the resources has begun. For this reason, Griñán’s defense has maintained before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court that the convicted person had “no relationship” with the implementation of the alleged subsidy program.
The defense says that the proven facts do not agree with the conclusion of the ERE sentence
The ruling of the Provincial Court of Seville on the procedure for granting social and labor aid indicated that Griñán was “fully aware of the blatant and patent illegality of the acts”. However, the defense has ensured that the proven facts do not agree with the conclusion of the sentence by which his representative was sentenced. And he has stressed that it is not described that Griñán had the capacity to dispose of the allegedly embezzled funds, reports Europa Press.
A) Yes, has accused the court that drafted the contested judgment of confusing political actions with administrative actions. This argument has also been defended by other lawyers, who have agreed that the facts that are declared proven do not correspond to the ruling.
Thus, in his opinion, “one who cannot decide on the destination of the funds cannot embezzle, the theft of public funds is not described, it is not possible to identify that Griñán had any profit motive nor third parties because it has not been carried out those third parties to trial”.
Common argument between the defenses
This last allegation has been common among the rest of the defenses, who have reproached that the sentence has ignored individual aid in the trial and then built the story of embezzlement around them, when “you cannot use what has not been submitted to proof or contradiction”, collects Efe.
Along these lines, the lawyer Encarnación Molino, in charge of representing the former Andalusian innovation councilor Francisco Vallejo, has considered that the presumption of innocence of his client has been violated. “There is no specific procedure. It is an invention. Actions of a political nature and of an administrative nature are being mixed in the sentence,” he pointed out.
While the lawyer Alfonso Tiburcio Martínez del Hoyo, in charge of the defense of the former Employment Counselor of the Antonio Fernández García Board, He has assured that it is “full of obscurities and contradictions” with “serious legal errors”. In his opinion, there is an “absolute inconsistency” between the proven facts and the ruling.
.
