The commission agent Luceño informs the judge that he cannot pay the four million bail that is missing

The commission agent Alberto Luceño has notified the judge that he does not have more money and assets to cover the four million euros of bail that he lacks.

The businessman, investigated together with Luis Medina for charging exorbitant commissions in the sale of defective sanitary material to the Madrid City Council in the worst of the pandemic, has sent a letter to Judge Adolfo Carretero this Wednesday to report his situation after the instructor I gave him a period of 48 hours.

“Very respectfully, we have come to communicate the impossibility of Mr. Luceño to meet the bail imposed, without prejudice to the assets and balances in current accounts already seized.

Although, as soon as the assets are available, the request of the court will be attended to, ”says the document, to which EL PAÍS has had access.

Luceño's defense received this Tuesday the notification of the ultimatum of Judge Carretero, who issued a resolution on April 29 where he was granted a period of 48 hours to complete the 6.2 million euros that he imposed as bail to secure the alleged swindled money.

In his opinion, the magistrate explained that until now only a property of 1.1 million euros had been seized from the commission agent;

various vehicles, with a value close to 950,000 euros;

and 129,140 euros that he had in his checking accounts.

Therefore, little more than four million were missing.

The judge keeps Luceño charged with aggravated fraud, falsehood and money laundering.

The magistrate has refused to charge him with raising assets, a crime that he has attributed to his partner Medina, brother of the Duke of Feria.

According to the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, the businessmen conspired to defraud the City Council.

According to the public prosecutor's complaint, they offered him "the possibility of acquiring large consignments of medical supplies manufactured in China."

But, in exchange, they pocketed six million euros, thanks to the fact that they "artificially inflated" the prices of products with skyrocketing commissions: 60% for masks;

71% for the tests;

and 81% for gloves, according to the investigations.

With the profits they made, they bought luxury goods, such as high-end cars;

gold watches;

a yacht, which Medina baptized as

and registered in Gibraltar;

and a house in Pozuelo de Alarcón (Madrid), with three parking spaces and valued at more than one million euros.

Luceño also paid 60,000 euros for a week's stay in a hotel in Marbella.

Collado's statement suspended

On the other hand, the judge has decided to suspend the statement of Elena Collado, the high-ranking Madrid City Council official who maintained fluid contact with the commission agents.

Collado, responsible for purchasing the Consistory during the pandemic, was summoned on May 9 as a witness, but the magistrate has agreed to cancel the interrogation pending deciding whether, as requested by one of the popular accusations, he should attend as accused by alleged crimes of embezzlement of public funds, prevarication and accomplice of fraud.

Until now, the Prosecutor's Office has ruled out her involvement.

Collado was the one who wrote a message to Luceño that said: "We have been scammed for sure."

Through another resolution dated this Wednesday, Carretero has also ruled out Más Madrid's request to charge Fernando Sánchez, manager of the Municipal Funeral Services Company of Madrid, through which the commission agents' payments were managed.

The opposition party attributed Sánchez an alleged crime of forgery and maintains that the City Council provided the public ministry with "order letters" of the material acquired different from those provided by the Funeral Services Company, despite the fact that "they should be exactly the same ”: “All of the above indicates that, possibly, these

modifications were made to make disappear or hide any link between the political position and the administrative acts dictated.”

A thesis that Anticorruption rejected, and now the judge.

“If there are differences in the letters of assignment, as a result of their literal reading, none of them —without prejudice to the fact that complementary documents may result, as the City Council says— affects essential elements of the documents, whose date, identity of signatures and The content coincides, as the Public Prosecutor says," says the magistrate, who reiterates: "Not stating, moreover, that the changes were made by the manager, or that they were made in order to hinder the investigations of the Prosecutor's Office, or hide their content. ”.