The extreme right came to institutional policy by launching softera against the “systemic corruption of bipartisanship” and the “beach bars” and giving cleaning and patriotism lessons in front of those who, according to their story, “loot” Spain. They are messages that have penetrated in part of the electorate and that, however, collide with the disdain that formations such as Vox or the party (Salf) has ended have shown towards the rules designed to prevent these practices. The Court of Auditors has just imposed the third fine on the Santiago Abascal party for illegal financing, while the Supreme Court has demanded Alvise Pérez to provide the accounting that did not present the supervisory body.
Although it is flagrant breaches of the party's financing law, both formations have tried to place the Court of Accounts in the center of an alleged political operation. “They seek to make Vox unfeasible. They still dare with illegalization, but they are taking steps,” said Abascal. “All matches and all media insult us and attack immorally to daily precisely because they know parasites and understand that we come to crush them of a damn time,” said Alvise, who was recorded by an involved in a fraud of fraud asking for money to finance the party and promising to return those favors when it is the key to a Government of Feijóo.
The reports of the Supervisory Body, however, are clear when verifying the breaches of both formations. In the case of Vox, the party accumulates fines for last summer for 1.145.820,94 euros for irregularities in the reception of donations. At least two of them have already been appealed to the Supreme Court, which will have the last word. Regarding Alvise, the last report of the Court of Accounts on the European elections – the only ones he has attended – says expressly that “the group of voters is over the party” (Salf) has not presented the electoral accounting. “The Ultra agitator will have to deliver it to the Judge of the Supreme Court that investigates him for irregular financing after receiving 100,000 euros in cash from the controversial businessman.
Vox: Donations under suspicion
On July 28, the Plenary of the Court of Accounts agreed to impose a fine of 50,000 euros to Vox after analyzing its accounting of the year 2020. The sanction, which can be appealed, is due to the fact that the formation raised funds “with a specific purpose”, when the law expressly prohibits proposing that money occurs for a specific cause. Parties cannot accept money subject to a specific destination precisely to prevent companies or pressure groups from conditioning their decisions against general interest.
He report of inspection corresponding to that year identified finalist donations for a total amount of 2,754 euros and stressed that the party had not facilitated the relationship of the funds of collection of funds carried out. It also evidenced the existence of value of value of 102,048.30 euros in ATMs. Vox has defended that the sale of party items (bracelets, pens …) were due to the sale of party, pens …) at the informative tables that installs in the streets of many cities and that, for that income, “the rules established for donations are not applied. But the court affirmed that” there is an uncertainty regarding whether part of said income corresponds to donations and not to the sale of products “and ended up imposing the aforementioned sanction.
Just three months before, in April, the inspection body had imposed on Vox another fine for 862,496.72 euros for a “very serious infraction” in the 2018, 2019 and 2020 accounts. The court considered proven that the extreme right party breached the law during those annuities in which he received and accepted cash and contributions of unidentified persons or entities.
The origin of that sanction, which Vox appealed to the Supreme Court a week later, is a report that warned about the “lack of control” in the entrances and outputs of money in the party. Again, the attention of public auditors caught the existence of bulky income through ATMs: 20,601.04 euros in 2018 and 311,947.05 euros in 2019. The party financing law does not allow anonymous or business donations, limits them to a maximum of 50,000 euros per year by the same person and forces to notify the Court of Accounts all over 25,000 euros.
In addition, that report revealed the “lack of control in the sale of promotional products and the absence of a sale price of them”, which “enables the perception of donations and contributions outside the requirements contemplated” in the aforementioned law. In this regard, it appears that the Treasury Department of the Party indicated in two internal instructions released in November 2018 and April 2019 that “there is no need to identify donors if the income is for an amount of less than 300 euros for the promotional activity”. It is an erroneous interpretation of the standard, which would explain why 80% of the revenues made at ATMs in 2019 was “amounts below 300 euros.”
Vox received his first fine more than a year ago, in July 2024. That sanction, which is also appealed to the Supreme Court, reached 233,324.22 euros and was due to the fact that the party had raised money for specific purposes, such as complaining against political rivals such as the expressor of the Generalitat Quim Torra.
The report on which this fine is based on the collection that the extreme right -wing party promoted for the “cause” to which it called 'complaint against Quim Torra' and for which it raised 31,664.80 euros. In addition, he entered another 120,482.93 euros “for the case 'Help us with the Borja bond'.” Borja was a young man sentenced to two years in prison and compensation of 180,000 euros for the murder of a robber he faced. The sentence considered proven that he did not act “in legitimate defense.” Despite this, Vox initiated a collection to avoid his entry into prison. The party alleged that when carrying out online donations, each donor had to mark a box in which he expressly declared “that said donation complies with the provisions” in the Law on Financing.
ALVISE: The request of the judge who investigates him
Another recent report by the Court of Auditors also revealed that “of the nine political formations forced to present the electoral accounting to the Court of Accounts, all except one (the group of voters” the party is over “) have fulfilled said obligation.” The Electoral Law establishes that between 100 and the 125 days after the elections, the parties, federations, coalitions or groups that would have reached the requirements required to receive state subsidies (…) they must present a “detailed and documented accounting of their respective income and electoral expenses”.
The training of Alvise did not and the supervisory body proposed that electoral subsidies not be awarded since it did not present that documentation. The candidacy would be entitled to 962,350.26 euros in subsidies, according to the votes and seats he obtained in those elections. Alise has defended that he registered “in a timely manner” all his accounts but “rejected registering the request for the collection of 1.1 million euros to which he promised to resign during the electoral campaign.” The reality is that he has not done so, which allows him to avoid any control.
This issue went up to the interrogation that was submitted last July in the Supreme Court by the judge who investigates him for irregular financing after having received 100,000 euros in cash from an entrepreneur days before the start of the European campaign. In the recordings made Alvise himself acknowledged that he needed cash that did not pass through the Radar of the Court of Accounts. Judge Julián Sánchez Melgar asked the Eurodiputa if he had presented the inspection body that accounting of their respective electoral income and expenses during the European campaign. Alise then pointed to the company he had hired to do that job. He said he called one of those responsible as soon as he read that he was accused of not presenting the accounts and that he told him that they had appeared and that he had confirmation, so he did not understand that “discrepancy of criteria.”
The judge then claimed both the certificate that he had submitted them as the accounts themselves. “I require him to present the accounts that have been submitted to the Court of Auditors and the document that proves that they have presented them so that the parties can know those accounts and can say what they are convenient with respect to it and an expert can be carried out,” said the magistrate, according to the transcription of that appearance. The statement of Alvise occurred on July 11 and, for the moment, that documentation remains without being available to the rest of the parties in that procedure, according to the legal sources consulted.
