José Luis Ábalos will remain free after taking advantage of his right not to testify in the Supreme Court. Judge Leopoldo Puente has rejected the request of the popular prosecution, led by the PP, which had demanded his entry into provisional prison. At the viewing held, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office has not supported the precautionary measure of imprisonment for the former minister, considering that, although there is a risk of flight, this is not “sufficiently intense” so that he can evade the action of Justice, as the investigator of the case has ended up considering.
In his order, Judge Puente alludes to the “stupor” produced, in his opinion, by the fact that Ábalos continues to be a deputy and takes advantage of the resolution to propose a “reflection” on a possible legal change that would prevent this. The magistrate affirms that the constitutional right to the presumption of innocence would not be an “obstacle” to this. And remember that the Congress Regulations suspend parliamentary rights and duties in the event that preventive detention is issued after the closure of the investigation. That is, once the indictment order has been issued and is final.
The magistrate has decided to maintain the measures that he imposed on the former minister and former 'number three' of the PSOE last February, when he testified for the second time, and which consist of the withdrawal of the passport and the obligation to appear in court every 15 days. The former minister left the high court aboard a taxi just over five hours after entering the building.
The judge indicates the latest report from the Central Operational Unit (UCO) of the Civil Guard that motivated his summons for this Wednesday increases the “existence and robustness” of the evidence against the former minister. However, he considers that at this time the elements included in the law to agree to provisional detention do not exist.
Thus, the magistrate rules out that there is a risk that Ábalos could continue committing crimes or destroy evidence. In relation to the third reason included in the law, the possibility of destroying evidence, the judge understands that this risk has also been avoided with the measures agreed upon so far. However, the judge affirms that the former minister has certain international contacts and links and that he may have significant amounts of opaque money, perhaps in cash, although he recognizes that these funds hypothetically deposited in third-party accounts “so far have not been found.”
Judge Puente has adopted this decision after Ábalos refused to appear in his fourth summons to the high court and denounced “defenselessness.” The former minister went to the Supreme Court after having renounced his lawyer and after, the day before, Judge Puente refused to assign him one ex officio and forced him to continue with the same lawyer who has represented him since the beginning of the investigation, almost a year ago.
Precisely, the judge's order, in which he accused Ábalos of “fraud of law” for announcing the resignation of his lawyer just a few hours later, caused an exchange between the magistrate and the person under investigation during his brief appearance. He told Puente that “fraud of law” would have been to renounce his deputy status so that the case would return to the National Court and the investigation would be delayed over time.
Judge Puente had summoned Ábalos after the latest report from the Central Operational Unit (UCO) which states that he handled up to 95,000 euros in five years without a bank trace. In the order issued this Wednesday, the magistrate affirms that solid evidence against Ábalos and affirms that this statement shows that he did not withdraw money from his accounts for several years and that, in addition, he made “significant” “opaque” income in those same accounts. Also that his advisor Koldo García assumed Ábalos's expenses with his own assets, such as alimony for one of his children.
By availing himself of his right not to declare, says the judge, Ábalos has not provided any “reasonable explanation” that could justify irregular income that is “corroborated” by the alleged corruptor of the case, the businessman Víctor de Aldama. The instructor once again highlights the fact that “no less than three properties” linked to Ábalos directly or indirectly present as a “common denominator” the “continued presence” of Aldama, a businessman outside the health sector who earned 6.6 million euros at the worst moment of the pandemic thanks to mask contracts awarded by entities that depended on Transport and other departments.