© Provided by eldiario.es
Monedero accuses the UDEF of
The co-founder of Podemos Juan Carlos Monedero has accused this Thursday the Central Unit for Economic and Fiscal Crime (UDEF) of “lacking the truth” in a report in which the agents pointed out that he denied access to review some emails. Monedero’s defense has submitted a brief to the judge in the Neurona case in which it alleges that it was the instructor himself, Juan José Escalonilla, who limited access to the emails and that both in this aspect, as in others of the police investigation, the agents are exceeding the order they received from the judge.
In the brief of the defense of Monedero, to which Europa Press has had access, the UDEF is disgraced for maintaining “partial opinions” easily contrasted with the knowledge and mere reading of the actions carried out by the instructor of the case. In their report, the agents indicated that from the analyzed emails of the university professor it has not been possible to prove his consultancy work and from there they concluded that the amount charged does not correspond to the stated concept. They pointed out that Monedero did not allow them access to his email, but the professor’s defense maintains that he “has not denied access to the emails to which the authors of the report refer.”
“Furthermore, your honor knows that there is in the proceedings, -in order to expedite the verification of those emails- (which were provided motu proprio in writing by the investigated party) the offer of Juan Carlos Monedero to go before the Lawyer of the Administration for the purpose of verifying what his honor had agreed, to the reason, to verify if they coincided with those provided”, he adds.
The defense points out that Monedero is “the most interested in verifying their content” and their coincidence with those provided in paper format. So he insists that the report lacks the truth in several of his statements because he “never denied and never refused” to give access to his mail.
The UDEF report came following the head of the Investigating Court Number 42 of Madrid, in charge of the investigation of the ‘Neurona case’, considered it pertinent to limit the analysis of Monedero’s emails and study only the messages exchanged with the consultancy that gives name to the cause and that would justify the 26,200 euros that it received. Monedero appears as investigated in this proceeding for an invoice issued on December 30, 2018 for a value of $30,000 for ‘300 hours of face-to-face consulting Buenos Aires, Mexico and Colombia’ for which on January 25, 2019 he received an income bank account of 26,200.31 euros from Neurona Consulting.
After reviewing the different decisions of the judge regarding those emails, the defense clarifies that the procedural iter being clear, and that in the same Monedero “he has not denied the adveration of the emails that he, through his procedural representation presented “, he has been waiting for “more than a year for the Central Cybercrime Unit to summon him for said warning of the 4 emails.
“As of today and if said summons had been made, the procedure would possibly have already been dismissed, having verified that the emails and the invoice issued contained therein have a date prior to the claim of the same by the bank, which was the argument of the UDEF in its first letter to declare the invoice as false”, he adds. And he adds that even today, a year following Monedero’s statement, “not a single test has been carried out nor has any further diligence been requested on his person.”
He then reviews what the instructor, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Provincial Court have maintained in reports and records to reiterate that he “never” denied access to those emails, so he points out that what the UDEF report maintains up to three times is ” false” and “must be corrected and specified”.
Thus, he points out that the UDEF report “shows (…) a clear and relevant bias” and regrets that following a year the agents have not opened the four aforementioned emails. “It makes it clear that the UDEF has not carried out its task as it should,” he adds.
Monedero also maintains that the author of the report “has exceeded the investigative functions commissioned by the instructor because it includes investigations that have no place or coverage in any diligence. Remember that they had to check if the plane tickets provided had really existed.
But it says that the author of the report decides on his own to ask Iberia regarding the payers of the same when the investigation “was exclusively regarding whether or not such trips existed.” He understands that there is an “obvious prospective investigation” with the intention of looking for “new data that has nothing to do with what was ordered by the instruction.”
However, remember that the UDEF says that two of the bills were paid by Podemos, another by a university, a fourth by CLACSO and the fifth by Juan Carlos Monedero himself. He points out in this regard that the tasks that can be developed when traveling to a country are multiple beyond who covers the transfers.
“Regarding the payment of these two bills, to say that, as stated in the report itself, the trip to Mexico coincided with events of enormous political importance: the presidential elections in Mexico in July 2018 and on the occasion of the inauguration of the President of the Republic of Mexico in December 2018. My representative attended these trips, as a person of enormous prestige in the country, as a reference and founder of the Podemos Political Party,” he explains.
And he adds that “since you don’t go to Mexico every weekend,” he took the opportunity to participate in other activities, adjusting the trip’s agenda. “It is sensible to accommodate such long trips to carry out different tasks that are in no way incompatible with each other. Hence, to say that this does not determine that I did work for Neurona, since it is still an unfounded opinion,” he adds. The same holds for the other trips paid for by universities and Clacso.
On the other hand, Monedero focuses on the fact that the UDEF makes the report regardless of the one agreed by the instructor and that the Central Cybercrime Unit (UCC) should provide.
“The UDEF, and specifically the authors of the report, rush and ignore that said work, even approved by the instructor, has not yet been carried out, and that its report would only make temporary and material sense, when said expert opinion has been carried out, as and as agreed. Carrying out the report without it leads to the partial conclusions it has reached,” he adds.
