New Evidence Emerges in Koldo Case Involving Former Minister Ábalos
On Wednesday, the defense of the alleged intermediary in the Koldo case submitted a significant document to the Supreme Court. This document reportedly reveals that the intermediary negotiated with former minister José Luis Ábalos for the transfer of a property valued at 19 million euros located on Paseo de la Castellana. In exchange, it is claimed that pre-awarded contracts were secured, according to reports from El Mundo and confirmations from legal sources to Europa Press.
The reported evidence indicates that the intermediary claimed to have collaborated with Ábalos on a plan where he would acquire the property located at number 164 Paseo de la Castellana without any payment. This arrangement was purportedly a guarantee for Ábalos to ensure that specific construction firms would pay commissions contingent on their success in obtaining public contracts.
Details surrounding the arrangement indicate that on April 24, 2019, a lease agreement with an option to purchase was finalized, set to expire on February 14, 2024. Sources state that this contract enabled Ábalos to secure the collection of future commissions, with the document suggesting that Ábalos sought nearly two million euros in commissions. Notably, these commissions were not limited to one particular contract but encompassed various deals, including a notable medical supplies contract awarded to Soluciones de Gestión.
The document asserts that once the required payments were completed, the contract itself became void, as it was never executed. Furthermore, it affirms that Ábalos never occupied the property in question, a point emphasized by the intermediary's statements during his voluntary declaration before the national court.
This development adds a layer of complexity to the Koldo case, which has attracted considerable media attention and raised questions about transparency and ethics within public contracts. As the legal proceedings continue to unfold, the revelations reported seek to clarify the nature of the relationships between the involved parties and the legality of the transactions tied to public contracts. The implications of these findings could have far-reaching effects, not only for those directly involved but also for public trust in governmental processes.
Related Sources: