Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 2:09:01 GMT -5
The ruling states that Fernando Villén and Ana Valls, “through the influence of the former, decided by common agreement, taking advantage of the control and access that the latter had to the accounting and the central cash register in her capacity as economic director, to simulate the returns of the aforementioned card expenses of the first through the procedure of the feigned deposit of such refunds in cash in the aforementioned central cash register, ordering” Ana Valls. “the notation of said returns in the company's settlements, which was intended exclusively to cover small current expenses of a periodic nature such as transportation expenses that had been paid directly by employees, meals, material or travel advances, etc. , and in which no income other than small returns of advances should be made.”
The Court indicates that, "in order to balance the cash, the defendants knew that at the time of the settlement, it was only necessary that there be expenses such as those Fax Lists corresponding to per diems or travel that would absorb the amount of the refund", adding that "these expenses, whose amounts complied with the regulations of the Junta de Andalucía, could be real, but in many cases they were fictitious , since the supporting documentation for them was practically non-existent", and "they were noted in the settlements of the Fund for the aforementioned purpose. that they adjusted to the amount of income that the simulated return represented.”
Secondly, the sentence adds, the defendants also “ decided by common agreement that the Economic Department headed by the defendant would carry out the accounting entry of the non-existent returns in the Daily Book,” and all of this in order that “are consistent with the aforementioned card expenses.” These entries “took place in eight of the ten expense operations described, with a lag between the expense and the accounting entry sometimes of days and sometimes of several months.”
“The purpose of this system devised by the defendants was clear: to avoid the entry of such refunds through bank transfers , which was the normal and reasonable way in which they should have been made” and that “they would have been able to demonstrate the amount, concept and date of said returns if they had been made, as well as the absence of these if they were not verified,” the ruling continues.
The Court indicates that, "in order to balance the cash, the defendants knew that at the time of the settlement, it was only necessary that there be expenses such as those Fax Lists corresponding to per diems or travel that would absorb the amount of the refund", adding that "these expenses, whose amounts complied with the regulations of the Junta de Andalucía, could be real, but in many cases they were fictitious , since the supporting documentation for them was practically non-existent", and "they were noted in the settlements of the Fund for the aforementioned purpose. that they adjusted to the amount of income that the simulated return represented.”
Secondly, the sentence adds, the defendants also “ decided by common agreement that the Economic Department headed by the defendant would carry out the accounting entry of the non-existent returns in the Daily Book,” and all of this in order that “are consistent with the aforementioned card expenses.” These entries “took place in eight of the ten expense operations described, with a lag between the expense and the accounting entry sometimes of days and sometimes of several months.”
“The purpose of this system devised by the defendants was clear: to avoid the entry of such refunds through bank transfers , which was the normal and reasonable way in which they should have been made” and that “they would have been able to demonstrate the amount, concept and date of said returns if they had been made, as well as the absence of these if they were not verified,” the ruling continues.