Ábalos points the finger at Óscar Puente and Marlaska for the purchase of masks in the “Koldo case”

Jose Luis Abalosformer Minister of Transport and deputy of the Joint Group of the Congress, recorded this Monday 23 questions addressed to the government of Pedro Sanchez about him Koldo case and the audit carried out by the Ministry of Transport, requested by the current minister, Oscar Bridge. The former socialist leader also asks the Sánchez executive to know in detail the economic cost that the preparation of this report would have entailed. The one who was responsible for Development and Transport between 2018 and 2020 also points his responsibilities to the Ministry of the Interior, the chief and the second lieutenant detained in the corruption plot that accumulated commissions for the purchase of medical supplies such as masks in the middle of the pandemic and who were hired through the company Management Solutions.

Ábalos collects various information that indicates that the second lieutenant introduced businessmen into the Ministry of Transport and how the Minister of the Interior, Fernando Grande-Marlaskaprotected this Civil Guard agent despite multiple complaints of abuse of power filed by unions and workers. The now Joint Group MP asks Óscar Puente if he will request an audit for the request of 1.2 million masks who was hired in 2022, when the Minister of Transport was Rachel SanchezThe former socialist leader wonders how it is possible that these irregularities documented in the audit were only known four years later and why measures were not taken against the Director General and the General Directorate of Organization and Inspection, administratively responsible for the reception and inspection. issuance of masks.

The one who was the PSOE’s organizing secretary until 2021 asks in these 23 questions to investigate the non-compliance of the head of administration and the security zone in the access control and records of visits to the Ministry of Transport. José Luis Ábalos focuses on the “special pass” that the commissioner had Victor de Aldama to enter the premises.

These are the 23 questions recorded by José Luis Ábalos and addressed to the government of Pedro Sánchez on the Koldo case:

1. As part of the actions carried out to prepare the “audit”, what were the criteria according to which a partial selection of the interviewees was carried out and the testimonies of all the people involved in the constitution of the files were not included or did you also not conduct interviews with all the people involved in the subject of the report, such as the main people responsible for the management of the ministry during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis?
2. How do the officials who were involved in preparing the “audit” know the overall demand that was needed and the reasons for the political decision to buy more masks as a “strategic reserve”?
3. Based on what criteria and his knowledge of the emergency situation, does the author of the audit report make assessments and value judgments on the appropriate and necessary quantity of masks to be purchased to deal with a health emergency situation and according to what principles and criteria in preparing the audit, does he question exclusive political decisions in an administrative file?
4. When did you become aware of the lack of masks at the Ministry of Transport?
5. When did we learn that there were no records or delivery notes for the deposit and shipment of masks from the Ministry of Transport?
6. Was the absence of delivery notes known before the Court of Auditors’ audit? If so, why was this absence not reported?
7. If the knowledge was the result of the “audit”, which bodies/units of the Ministry of Transport were responsible for detecting the absence of minutes and delivery notes and why did they not do so? In this case, which bodies and mechanisms failed during these four years?
8. What kind of administrative responsibilities will the Minister of Transport and Sustainable Mobility demand from the heads of administrative bodies (senior civil servants, general directorate of organization and inspection, etc.) in charge of receiving and issuing masks under the TMA/ ? 263/2020 and TMA/292/2020 decrees who should have exercised proper control over the execution of the contracts as they themselves have now denounced in the “audit” of the Ministry of Transport and Sustainable Mobility, after four years?
9. Knowing that there are 500,000 FFP2 masks in an Adif warehouse in Madrid, from an order for 1.2 million units placed in 2022, during the term of Minister Raquel Sánchez, is the current Minister of Transport and Sustainable Mobility also ordering an “audit” to determine both the appropriate need for the purchase of these masks and their management two years after the files related to the execution of decrees TMA/263/2020 of March 20 and TMA/292/2020?
10. How do you explain that during these four years you have not detected the “irregularities” that you now report in your “audit”, nor checked the proper compliance with the execution of contracts, nor guaranteed the chain of control of the masks, nor the functions of the personnel responsible for drawing up the reports and issuing these masks, such as the Prefecture and/or the General Directorate of Organization and Inspection?
11. Why, in the case of Mr. Aldama, does the audit report not investigate the failure of the General Directorate and the Security Zone to comply with their responsibilities to control and record access to the Ministry, having informed the Ministry only four hours years later? the higher authorities of these irregularities as now if they are included in the said audit report?
12. Why, in the case of the Civil Guard sub-lieutenant arrested for the “Delorme affair”, does the “audit” not investigate the “unregistered visits” of the businessmen he introduced to the ministry and whose facts were reported by the security team? of MITMA, as reported in the article in EL ESPAÑOL of June 7 referenced in the “Explanation of reasons”
13. Is there any documentation from the security area on Mr. Aldama’s access records and the “unregistered visits” of the Civil Guard sub-lieutenant that allows us to know exactly how many times they accessed during 2020 and 2021, as indicated in the corresponding ministerial protocols?
14. Why did the office of the senior officer allow access to the second lieutenant of the Civil Guard (personnel not linked to MITMA and who was the one who managed the masks of the Ministry of the Interior, according to his own confession) to a room where the masks of the Ministry of Transport were kept? Sustainable Mobility and Urban Agenda, as shown in a recording published on September 13 by the digital newspaper EL ESPAÑOL with the title “Marlaska protected the Civil Guard from the ‘Koldo case’ despite complaints from Transport”. article previously referenced in “explanation of reasons”?
15. Is there evidence that during these four years, the office of the Head of Administration has issued any kind of report or formal communication regarding the existence of the deposit and shipment/destination of these masks in the offices of the Ministry of Transport, authorized by the Head of Administration himself and that for its custody has allowed and left, in a clear delegation of the administrative responsibilities of his powers, free access to said material to people outside MITMA, such as the second lieutenant of the Civil Guard and to whom he has provided some keys, assuming a break in the chain of control of the masks?
16. Which superior authorized the senior officer to hand over to the Civil Guard second lieutenant the key to the unit where the masks from the Ministry of Transport were kept?
17. If there is authorization, what documents justify such a delegation of administrative powers to the second lieutenant of the Civil Guard?
18. How many masks from this warehouse went to other agencies of other ministries and specifically how many were sent to the Ministry of Interior and which agencies of said ministry?
19. Was there any record of these masks being sent to the Ministry of the Interior?
20. What documentation is there that documents the masks that the Civil Guard sub-lieutenant brought to the Ministry of the Interior, as reported in the aforementioned article from El Español and which says that the sub-lieutenant acknowledges having managed these masks for the Ministry of the Interior?
21. Where within the Ministry of the Interior were these masks sent?
22. Did the Ministry of the Interior pay the amount corresponding to these masks?
23. What was the economic cost of this “audit” which did not result in the demand for any responsibility on the part of those responsible for the irregularities detected?