He maintains that keeping the investigation alive causes “a very high cost to the public coffers”
MADRID, 3 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The television producer José Luis Moreno has asked the judge of the National Court in charge of the investigation of the ‘Titella operation’ to reveal the “economic cost incurred as a result of the initiation and substantiation” of what he considers a “prospective investigation prohibited against” to his person.
In a letter dated October 27, to which Europa Press has had access, the defense of the ventriloquist assures that “the stubborn refusal” of the head of the Central Court of Instruction Number 2, Ismael Moreno, to “agree on the dismissal and file” regarding de Moreno “is assuming a very high cost for the public coffers, since the Administration of Justice continues to allocate public funds” to the cause itself.
In this sense, and “according to” the law, Moreno’s representation has requested that “either directly or through a request to the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior”, details be given of the “economic cost incurred by all concepts as a consequence of the initiation and substantiation of these preliminary proceedings”.
The television producer’s lawyer relies on the transparency law and recalls that it recognizes “the right of all citizens to transparency, access to public information” and asks “to subject public officials to scrutiny so that explain how public funds are managed”.
In the aforementioned letter, Moreno emphasizes that “more than three years have passed since the initiation of this case.” “Period during which a criminal investigation has been underway that should never have been directed against my client since there is no evidence whatsoever regarding it, nor conduct displayed by Mr. Moreno deserving of criminal reproach,” says his lawyer.
In his opinion, his “accusation was caused by erroneous police reports, which have already been distorted.” “Despite this,” he adds, “it was agreed to direct the procedure against Moreno” granting him “investigated status that is still maintained today despite his innocence having been fully proven.”
“So much so, that at the height of the grotesque it has had to be this party that insistently requests the specification of the facts, evidence and crimes against which it would still have to defend itself, specification that the Central Court has not done (nothing is reproached , because it is impossible to specify what does not exist); and the urgent impulse of the cause. Which has not been agreed either, “he criticizes.
José Luis Moreno, accused of fraud, money laundering, illicit association, forgery of documents, punishable insolvency and crimes against the Public Treasury, is on conditional release, with the obligation to appear weekly in court, passport withdrawal and prohibition to leave the country .
The investigators divide the alleged plot into two organizations: one led by Moreno, Antonio Aguilera and Antonio Salazar, dedicated since 2017 to “fraud and fraud against banking entities and private investors”, “to the falsification of bank effects such as checks and promissory notes” and to “money laundering”; and another, headed by Carlos Brambilla, an alleged drug trafficker who would have used said structure to launder money.
According to the judicial report, Moreno and Aguilera would be the “maximum responsible” and Salazar, the third in action. Each one would have a function. The producer, “as a well-known public figure, would lend his name as a business card” in order to easily get the financing they would pretend to need to launch a film project. Therefore, he “was the main recipient of the funds obtained”.
That money would then pass into the hands of Aguilera and Salazar. The two would have “extensive knowledge in banking and commercial operations”, so they would take care of creating the companies, “make them up”, appoint administrators and present them to the banking entities as the recipients of the necessary financing for said projects. In reality, they would have no activity at all.
Through this network of “front companies” managed by presumed figureheads, both organizations would move “large amounts of cash” which they tried to dispose of with income that they passed off as benefits from their commercial work or with cash injections for which they would have the complicity of bank employees who would take their commission in exchange for introducing this money into the legal circuit.
