Bailed Out: Jaume and the architects

If you needed to find three million euros pretty sharpish, where would you look?

Short of suddenly striking lucky on the Euromillions, chances are that you wouldn't find it, and that if your necessity for the three million had been to avoid being banged up, then you would now be languishing in a cell. Duly incarcerated, you would also be unable to participate in an hour-long television interview in which you attack an investigating judge, prosecutors and the police. But then you are not Jaume Matas.

The Matas case is extraordinary in many respects, but the very public nature of the accusations and charges and rebuttals and denials makes it not just extraordinary but unreal. And then there is the small matter of that three million wedge which was handed over in the nick of time and thus spared Matas from prison. Where did it come from? That was what the judge wanted to know; you would think that he'd be grateful. There are plenty who will argue, with some justification, that the bail was excessive (and political). Matas found the money, despite the slight inconvenience of the Easter holidays getting in the way. Maybe this has piqued the judge.

The money, it would appear, came via two sources - Banco de Valencia and Arquía-Caja de Arquitectos, a credit co-operative formed in 1983 for the express purpose of providing savings and loans to architects. As such, you can probably understand that questions are being raised as to why it has been caught up in the provision of bail to keep the former Balearics president out of the slammer, even if it did not directly stump up the moolah as there was a transfer to it from the Banco de Valencia. And as for this bank ... It is part of Bancaja, an employee of which is Matas's brother-in-law, himself implicated in the Palma Arena case. The president of Bancaja also happens to be a former president of the Valencia "generalitat" and a friend of Matas.

Despite the not unusual connections and the unease at Arquía, Matas, one would think, had every right to find whatever means he could to raise what was a huge amount. The size of the bond, while indicating the seriousness of the charges, has added to the sense in which a presumption of guilt has been made. To this end, and bringing us to the unreality of the whole episode, Matas went onto local television this week to express his innocence and to have a go at the prosecuting ranks. Fair though it may be for Matas to give his public version of events, in countering that emanating from the judge and prosecutors, one does have to wonder - again - as to the judicial process. Moreover, the television channel he chose for his interview, IB3, is not entirely without some political colour - that of the Unió Mallorquina party which has been and remains closely associated with the management of the station. The UM is the most natural ally of the Partido Popular, Matas's party, on the centre-right of Mallorcan politics. IB3 was also the channel on which former UM leader Maria Antònia Munar gave an interview in which she explained her side of corruption charges that she faces.

Other than the kerfuffle surrounding the bail, it has emerged that Matas has challenged the judge to investigate who - Matas argues - falsified documents related to meetings and the ordering of payments. Not only is this crucial, it also serves as a reminder that there may well be two sides to the whole story. Some, such as elements of the local press, seem to have ignored this possibility, preferring to see Matas as having been bang to rights. Possibly so, but possibly not. Let's not forget this. Matas could have been remanded, but he has not been.


Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.