Why does the judge keep Cerdán in prison and not send Ábalos and Koldo?

MadridFollowing the new Civil Guard report revealing financial mismatches involving José Luis Ábalos and Koldo García, they appeared before the Supreme Court this week and remain on provisional release. In contrast, former PSOE organizational secretary Santos Cerdán has been imprisoned since June, and the investigating judge in the case, Leopoldo Puente, has twice reaffirmed his decision. Why this discrepancy? Of the three factors that legitimize provisional detention, the judge ruled out the risk of flight and repeated offenses, but warned of the possible destruction of evidence.

"The indications point to Cerdán, insofar as he could have been the person who negotiated with the payers and then received the payments and distributed them to his collaborators, is the person who should have knowledge of the entire process and who, consequently, could seriously hinder the progress of the investigation by hiding, by hiding, by hiding, by hiding, an order from October 3. It was based on the audios provided by the Central Operative Unit (UCO) of the armed institute in which it was deduced that Cerdán was the one who, in a certain way, distributed the alleged illegal commissions.

This evidence and "relevant" elements, Puente pointed out, have not yet been found, "although intense work is being done" to do so. In that document, he stated that the complete files of the public works awards under suspicion have been obtained and that their analysis will allow us to extract which companies participated, if there were modifications to the contracts, etc. The report of the UCO regarding Cerdán's financial situation, something the judge ordered to be investigated shortly after imprisoning him. In contrast, Ábalos and his former advisor have been under investigation for longer, and the judge has already been able to examine their addresses and bank accounts.

"It does not appear, given the time that has passed and the set of actions carried out, that the person under investigation is in a position to alter, hide, or destroy sources of evidence," Puente wrote this Thursday in the order that maintained the precautionary measures already in force for Koldo García –the withdrawal of the passport and the biweekly appearance in court–. The text on Ábalos also stated that pretrial detention cannot be imposed when this argument –the risk of destruction of evidence– is inferred from the fact that the suspect does not cooperate with justice in an exercise of their right to defense.

According to the Commons lawyer who is exercising one of the popular accusations in the case, Xavi Muñoz, there is a "bias" and a "disproportion" in Cerdán's situation. He considers that the "potential for the destruction of evidence" of the former number 3 of the PSOE compared to the rest of the suspects is not sufficiently argued and that there is a greater risk of destruction of evidence by Ábalos and García because there is more evidence against them –mismatched funds, properties used by the former minister and theirs. What the judge says is that he already has this evidence and that the defendants can no longer destroy it, because it is already included in the investigation.

The companies

Muñoz also emphasizes that the fact that a person is deprived of liberty is a "self-imposed requirement" on the judge to conduct his investigation "swiftly." He admits that it is "very evaluative" to reach a conclusion about whether Puente is being sufficiently swift in obtaining evidence that, hypothetically, Cerdán could tamper with if he were not incarcerated. "We don't know if it's not appearing or if the investigation is moving slowly," the lawyer points out. As already denounced by the former Socialist leader's defense, led by former CUP deputy Benet Salellas, the Commons prosecution also criticizes the judge for not having searched the headquarters of Acciona, one of the main allegedly corrupt companies, nor for having imprisoned those responsible. "We understand that there is a significant risk of evidence being destroyed [by the companies]," Muñoz adds.