The judge summons Félix Tezanos to testify as accused of alleged embezzlement in the CIS

The Court of Instruction Number 29 of Madrid has summoned the president of the Center for Sociological Research (CIS) to testify as a defendant on October 29, at 12:30 p.m. José Félix Tezanos , following a complaint filed by Vox for an alleged crime of embezzlement of public funds.

The decision takes place after the Prosecutor’s Office requested on September 29 the Vox complaint file arguing that “they are mere suspicions, conjectures , which relate in an inappropriate way, the ineffectiveness in the performance of surveys with the fraudulent administration of the CIS institution “.

The complaint filed by the formation led by Santiago Abascal maintains that the operation of the CIS since Tezanos was appointed president in 2018 is “irregular.” He accuses him, among other things, of manipulating the way of conducting the polls to benefit the PSOE.

To benefit the PSOE

“The dividing line between administrative irregularity has been overcome since it is demonstrated (…) that the President of the CIS has acted maliciously modifying even the professional operating techniques to be applied to achieve their goals, benefit to the PSOE ”, affirm the complainants.

Vox pointed out that the objective of his complaint was to analyze whether the surveys carried out in the last three years by the CIS , given “the known and notorious deviations from his president towards the PSOE, can be considered normal or extreme, random or intentional, also taking into account the high costs paid by the CIS for the Outsourced Surveys ”.

The State Advocacy, on behalf of Tezanos, recurred the admission for processing of the complaint, based on two arguments. The first due to the prospective nature of the criminal investigation, as there was no realization of the facts that were the subject of the complaint, and the second due to the atypicality of the facts given that, in his opinion, there were no indications in relation to the content of the complaint. , that justify its typicity by a crime of embezzlement of public funds.

“No solidity”

The Prosecutor’s Office, for his part, I understood that the complaint does not meet the necessary budgets that may legitimize the initiation of a judicial investigation for the alleged commission of a criminal offense, in particular, a crime of embezzlement of public funds. Moreover, it states that “the complainant, nothing credits regarding the existing evidence regarding the commission of the crime reported. ”

In its brief, the Prosecutor’s Office assured that the accusations that are reflected in the complaint and included in a expert report have so only as a basis different press news and television reports , “as well as comments and opinions on networks, without providing any of the files that support the carrying out of the surveys that are the object of the expert report, and without any action by the investigated being carried out aimed at complying with the requirements of the type that is the subject of the complaint. ”

Thus, reason that what the complainants expose “are mere suspicions, conjecture s, which improperly link ineffectiveness in conducting surveys with the fraudulent administration of the CIS institution. ”

The Public Ministry also argues that the facts denounced lack the “solid enough ” that legitimize the initiation of a criminal investigation since “they are far from satisfying the requirements of the criminality of the crime that is the subject of the complaint.”

“Lack of evidence”

In the same way, it emphasizes that “although it is true” that the preparation of surveys is part of the functions assigned to the CIS, this task can be questioned due to its effectiveness without this questioning leading to the demand for criminal responsibility.

Thus, the Prosecutor’s Office argues that there is no logical causal relationship that leads to the assumption that the errors reported in the preparation of surveys “are the consequence of a malicious administration directed by the defendant with the purpose of violating the purposes of the institution. in profit of a specific political party. ”

Insists that this type of assertions “are only supported by conjecture and suspicion” and that nothing is specified in relation to a fraudulent management of the public assets of the CIS.

Finally, it specifies that “The irregularities that are reported, relative to the form of preparation of surveys by the CIS body, in line with the principle of minimal criminal intervention and the lack of sufficient evidence, must be resolved in the administrative sphere or disciplinary, once the files or documents that support the conduct of the surveys are obtained and that allow, therefore, to objectively assess any type of error or manipulation in their preparation. ”

Follow the topics that interest you