He asserts that the president of the arms company was aware of the contracts and that the agent in the area involved was trustworthy
MADRID, 18 Ene. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The former commercial director of the semi-public arms company DEFEX Manuel Iglesias has maintained in his appearance as a defendant in the trial being held at the National Court for the alleged irregularities to obtain public contracts in Cameroon that gifts or benefits were never offered to officials of that African country in exchange for winning awards.
Iglesias, who sits on the bench next to DEFEX itself -already in bankruptcy- for the alleged contracting and billing carried out to obtain these public contracts through the payment of illegal commissions, which the Prosecutor’s Office estimates at 15 million euros, to authorities and officials of the African country, has asserted, to questions from the different defenses, that he is also not aware –“and I am convinced that he is not”– that DEFEX agents in the country or subcontractors had offered those gifts.
This has been pronounced throughout his interrogation, which has lasted for two days, in which he has explained to questions from the Prosecutor’s Office that his competence in DEFEX was “to promote products from the Spanish industry in African countries and the Middle East” and that everything he negotiated with external agents was supervised by his superiors in the company. Thus, he has specified that both the director of Operations and the president of DEFEX knew about these relationships.
It should be remembered that the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office requests that both Iglesias and senior officials of subcontracted companies for these contracts –the president of the company Grupo Aresa Internacional, Óscar López, and the head of Business Development at Deimos Space SLU, Francisco Luque– are sentenced to between 18 and 23 years in prison.
All of them, like companies as legal entities, are being tried for alleged crimes of corruption in international business transactions, embezzlement of public funds, money laundering and document falsification in this piece of the so-called ‘Defex case’, which is pending. from other trials for corrupt practices in Angola or Saudi Arabia.
Much of the questioning of Iglesias has revolved around the figure of Philippe Bourcier, the commercial agent in Cameroon who for him was a key player in achieving those contracts. About him, Anticorruption maintains that he acted as an intermediary between 2005 and 2013 to pay the alleged bribes through seven ‘ghost’ companies with accounts in Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the African republic in order to achieve the contracts.
Iglesias has asserted, however, that the commissions that Bourcier took to achieve contracts were stipulated and depended on the complexity of the assistance he provided, and he has stressed that he reported them to his superiors and that they were never paid in tax havens .
Asked by the prosecutor about the reason for having his services, Iglesias explained that Bourcier lived in Cameroon, knew how to operate there and “had relationships at all levels.” He has pointed out that they worked with him as an agent since 1989 and he was key in getting hold of several operations.
Regarding the different companies of the agent to which they made payments, the former commercial director of DEFEX explained that they were all legal and he downplayed the fact that he signed with one or the other because basically they all depended on the same person, with who maintained a relationship of full trust.
Regarding his responsibility for paying the invoices that were issued by those Bourcier companies, Iglesias has maintained that he made an internal note to the financial director of DEFEX stating that these payments were “appropriate”, although he has specified that his signature did not had validity.
Today, the declaration of DEFEX as a legal person accused has also begun, and to questions from the prosecutor, the lawyer appointed by the company has indicated that all the contracts with Bourcier proposed by Iglesias were indeed endorsed by the president and punctually by the Council of Management.
However, and after focusing on the fact that the agent’s companies invoiced both DEFEX and the subcontractors Deimos and Aresa, it has indicated that they consider themselves “harmed” by this double payment.
For his part, the president of Aresa, Óscar López, has defended during the interrogation of the prosecutor that they complied with the obligations of the Cameroon contract with DEFEX, and has pointed out that the payment they made to a Bourcier company —650,000 euros- – It was for a logistical support service in the African country and not a commission.
In addition, he has denied, like the rest of the defendants, having made any payment to a Cameroonian official or authority as a gift for obtaining contracts.
This Wednesday, the person in charge of Deimos Francisco Luque, who has asserted that his participation in the Cameroon case as head of business development was circumstantial and adhered to an analysis of the business opportunity and a couple of firms in documents not prepared by him.
Throughout the two days of the trial, mention has been made of certain expenses that could be eligible as a gift to certain Cameroonian officials.
Already in the indictment, the “decisive” role played by Rear Admiral Pierre Njine Djonkam, “recipient of gifts, trips, hotel stays and cosmetic surgery expenses” for his wife, was highlighted in obtaining the contracts.
In an email in the case, Iglesias himself spoke of “retreading” to refer in theory to those operations that were carried out by the semi-public company.
But this Wednesday, the commercial director of DEFEX pointed out that the ‘retreading’ was actually referring to a review of a back problem for Njine’s wife and therefore “has nothing to do” with a mammoplasty.
Óscar López has also expressed himself in this line, who has pointed out that if Aresa took charge of medical expenses it was because they arose and the normal thing was to “give them coverage.” Although he has added that those expenses were passed on to DEFEX.
The trial will continue this Thursday with the completion of the interrogation of DEFEX, which must continue to answer for the facts investigated, which focus on contracts for vehicle spare parts, surveillance systems, riot control material and patrol boat weapons.
