One of lime and another of sand. In September it became known that the former president of the venture capital company of the Junta de Andalucía between 2005 and 2010, Invercaria, Tomas Pérez Sauquilloreceived a blow Supreme Courtwhose Criminal Chamber doubled the sentence imposed on this former senior official of the Board of Directors at the time of the PSOE for having “enriched” himself and other leaders of the autonomous company by paying illegal bonuses to the detriment of public funds. He set the new sentence at four years and six months. Today the Supreme Court reduces another sentence of Pérez Sauquillo from 3 to 2 years in prison, applying the reform of the crime of embezzlement agreed between PSOE and ERC end of 2022, and which benefited the separatists.
As detailed by the press office of the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia, the Criminal Chamber reduces the prison sentence of the former president of Invercaria, who accumulates sentences but has not yet set foot in prison , for the granting of a loan of 300,000 euros without justification in 2008 to a company in Jaén.
Pérez Sauquillo was convicted in this case for crimes of prevarication and embezzlement during a media competition for the granting of a participatory loan to the Fumap company in Jaenhasand this, as the Court of Seville established, “arbitrarily, without justification and without following established procedures, because the company was to be dissolved on this date due to the progressive deterioration of its assets and its lack of liquidity. This caused damage to the Andalusian Innovation and Development Agency (IDEA), to which Invercaria was linked.
The former president of the latter company was sentenced to 3 years and 1 day in prison and 6 years of absolute disqualification, and the sole director of Fumapa, as an instigator of the embezzlement, was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months in prison and 3 years in prison. absolute disqualification. THE mitigate undue delays.
The Supreme Court rejects the appeal of Pérez Sauquillo, the only one of the two convicts who appealed, except in the retroactive application of the reform of the offense of embezzlement approved in December 2022, to be more beneficial for the prisoner.
Thus, the court explains that since it was a competition of crimes, the minimum sentence increased by one day (3 years and 1 day in prison) was pronounced for reasons, therefore, now following the same criterion of individualization and with the new penalty established. by Organic Law 14/2022, the penalty of 2 years and 1 day in prisonthis is what establishes. The criterion extends to the non-recurring convicted person, the sole director of the company having obtained the loan, whose sentence is reduced to 1 year and 1 day in prison.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court corrects the error of considering as disqualifications those imposed on the two convicts are absolute, which do not correspond to the crimes assessed, and establish that there will be special prohibitions for any elective position or designation of contracting power in the companies of any administration, for 6 years in the case of Pérez . Sauquillo and 3 years in that of the second convict. Likewise, the court ratifies the conviction of the two accused to jointly compensate the public organization IDEA to the tune of 300,000 euros.
“Lots of evidence”
The Supreme Court rejects the rest of the arguments in Pérez Sauquillo’s appeal, emphasizing that the finding of guilt established by the Seville court “is supported by a a rich body of evidence about which no type of allegation has been made that calls into question the content of the accusation or its rational evaluation, therefore we do not appreciate the violation of the right to the presumption of innocence that is invoked .
He adds that “the evidence produced demonstrates that the participatory loan granted to Fumapa was not granted under market conditions given the situation of technical bankruptcy of the companywithout there being a business plan and without guarantees being required for its recovery and control, the loan therefore in reality concealed aid to an economically unviable company. As proof, the judgment cites the report published by the Chamber of Accounts of Andalusia on 03/17/2009 and the fact that the administrator of Fumapa himself gave instructions for the money received to be considered as a subsidy .
