Denounce the purchase of the luxury penthouse for Ayuso: "A certain and assessable damage"

MadridThe controversial purchase –and subsequent sale– of a luxury penthouse in Madrid's Chamberí neighborhood has reached the Court of Auditors. It was reported by a lawyer who, given the “impossibility of accessing” the documentation on this operation, wished to “bring to the attention” of the supervisory body a “set of facts that appear to have caused a deficit to public funds”. The case broke out last week, when The Country revealed that the Community of Madrid had bought a 485 square meter luxury penthouse to serve as a "temporary office" for Isabel Díaz Ayuso's government during the works at the Madrid regional government headquarters in Puerta del Sol, although this was not known. Despite this, 24 hours later, the executive announced that the property would come and would allocate the money to the reconstruction of the fire that has devastated the western mountain range.

“He acquired a residential property with public funds for a millionaire amount without any of the documents that should prove it was for a public purpose being registered,” denounces Javier Flores. He is the same lawyer who a few months ago took the management of the Torrejón de Ardoz Hospital, which was under suspicion for rejecting patients to extend waiting lists and increase profits. The document, which ARA has accessed, indicates that Planifica Madrid – the public company that bought the penthouse – bypassed mandatory prior controls when acquiring the property and committed costs through a route that “prevented knowing and auditing them beforehand”.

Three and a half months later, “without having allocated it to any use”, he sold it: “Public heritage has entirely borne the irreversible costs of a round trip operation that has not provided any utility”, the complaint concludes. Likewise, it argues that the object of the writing is to inspect this “real and assessable harm” and not the “intention” that those who decided to buy the penthouse had. The lawyer “does not impute” the commission of a specific offense to any person, but rather “solely requests” that the Court of Auditors collect the documents and determine “if accounting responsibility exists”.

What does the lawyer claim?

Specifically, Javier Flores wants to know if there was a “justificatory report of the need and file” for the works that Isabel Díaz Ayuso's government invoked as the cause of the purchase. In fact, he doubts that the works actually existed: “No tender referring to the works has been located, nor has the estimated start date of the works been made public,” he emphasizes. The non-existence of the works would have “first-order relevance,” given that it “would deprive the operation of sufficient cause.”

Secondly, he requests to know what price was paid, if there was a “technical valuation” that accredited it corresponded to the market and from where the resources used to purchase it came. Furthermore, he also asks “what irreversible costs” the operation has generated for public assets.