"El Mundo" has today published alleged text messages between Spanish prime minister Mariano Rajoy and the former treasurer of the Partido Popular, Luis Bárcenas, and Bárcenas's wife which suggest that Rajoy asked Bárcenas to deny the existence of the so-called B accounts in which there are entries for illegal payments made to Rajoy and other prominent members of the PP. These messages are said to have been made up to as late as March of this year. "El Mundo" also reports that a former member of the PP's executive, Manuel Milián Mestre, has said that everyone knew of the existence of the "bonuses" in the B accounts.
See more: El Mundo
Showing posts with label Illegal payments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Illegal payments. Show all posts
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Thursday, July 11, 2013
From Economic To Moral Bankruptcy
There are times when the game is up, when you know the game is up but you try to convince yourself that the game can continue, despite evidence to the contrary. There are times when those looking on know that the game is up or believe that the game cannot continue because evidence is weighing heavily against it.
Evidence. This is the key. The evidence points to the game being up. To carry on, confronted with this apparent evidence, becomes variously futile, blind, conceited, delusional, misguided, immoral. But the evidence still remains the key. What if the evidence is wrong, if it has been tampered with, if it has been as corrupted as the apparent corrupt activity it suggests?
The evidence against Mariano Rajoy is the evidence from someone facing charges of tax fraud, bribery, money laundering and forgery. It is a charge list that can be used to argue that the evidence is not sound. How can someone charged in such a way be reliable? How can evidence be reliable? If the evidence is the key, then note, please note, that he - Luis Bárcenas - is charged, among other things, with having forged documents.
Bárcenas may not have forged the so-called B accounts which reveal illicit payments to Mariano Rajoy and others, but might - because the originals of the ledgers that have now been seen suggest that they were created over time and not over a short time - he have created a phantom set of accounts, one that could be used at a future date? Has Bárcenas, for years, been plotting by making false entries into ledgers? Why would he have been plotting in such a way?
If the payments to Rajoy and others weren't genuine, but the ledgers are genuine in that they were compiled over many years, then Bárcenas must have had a reason for producing false evidence that he might subsequently use. If the game might be thought to be up for Rajoy, if the evidence is indeed genuine in all respects, then did Bárcenas, over all those years, believe that another game would be up, one for which he planned for years and years? Plan for a time when he could seek some revenge? For what? Or that he could seek something else? What? And why?
But what sense would there be in fabricating, systematically and over years, false accounts which indicate, among other things, receipts from businesses which might then be favoured in the awarding of construction contracts and payments to leading members of the PP? Bárcenas would have known that fabricated accounts could be disputed and ultimately shown to be fictitious. Or could they? Without paper trails and because of payments in cash, then they hard to disprove. Just as they are hard to prove.
It is understandable that defenders of Rajoy point to Bárcenas's apparent immorality or criminality, as the president of the Balearics has in asking questions as to how Bárcenas came by so many millions of euros. But is Bárcenas's immorality evidence of something else, something that he was aware would come out at some point? For what he was planning? A web of immorality within the Partido Popular that began to be spun many years ago?
It is, however, a different web - one of intrigue - that prevents the consequence of alleged payments to Rajoy occurring, namely his resignation. By any standards of morality, faced with evidence, he should resign. But the evidence is key, and more than a list of entries in a ledger, the evidence now begins to suggest the existence of a web of intrigue, deceit and mistrust that has enveloped the PP.
Untangling this web is likely to be what saves Rajoy. There is proof, but there is no proof. The evidence is key, but the evidence is not evidence. And because of this, the absence of transparency and the presence of secrecy in Spanish politics are exposed. The political system is exposed once more to the accusation of inherent corruption. Truths about this system are devilishly difficult to discover, because of the web that encircles it.
Rajoy, playing the blind man to the alleged evidence, comes before the press at a think-tank and says that green shoots are emerging. They will emerge not this year, not next year but in 2015. He says that economic recovery is coming, but how can one trust his word? One cannot. The recovery goalpost moves. There is no recovery, just as there is no evidence and no proof. Bankrupt. Or all but bankrupt in economic terms. In moral terms? Bankrupt, too, but this assumes there ever has been morality.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Evidence. This is the key. The evidence points to the game being up. To carry on, confronted with this apparent evidence, becomes variously futile, blind, conceited, delusional, misguided, immoral. But the evidence still remains the key. What if the evidence is wrong, if it has been tampered with, if it has been as corrupted as the apparent corrupt activity it suggests?
The evidence against Mariano Rajoy is the evidence from someone facing charges of tax fraud, bribery, money laundering and forgery. It is a charge list that can be used to argue that the evidence is not sound. How can someone charged in such a way be reliable? How can evidence be reliable? If the evidence is the key, then note, please note, that he - Luis Bárcenas - is charged, among other things, with having forged documents.
Bárcenas may not have forged the so-called B accounts which reveal illicit payments to Mariano Rajoy and others, but might - because the originals of the ledgers that have now been seen suggest that they were created over time and not over a short time - he have created a phantom set of accounts, one that could be used at a future date? Has Bárcenas, for years, been plotting by making false entries into ledgers? Why would he have been plotting in such a way?
If the payments to Rajoy and others weren't genuine, but the ledgers are genuine in that they were compiled over many years, then Bárcenas must have had a reason for producing false evidence that he might subsequently use. If the game might be thought to be up for Rajoy, if the evidence is indeed genuine in all respects, then did Bárcenas, over all those years, believe that another game would be up, one for which he planned for years and years? Plan for a time when he could seek some revenge? For what? Or that he could seek something else? What? And why?
But what sense would there be in fabricating, systematically and over years, false accounts which indicate, among other things, receipts from businesses which might then be favoured in the awarding of construction contracts and payments to leading members of the PP? Bárcenas would have known that fabricated accounts could be disputed and ultimately shown to be fictitious. Or could they? Without paper trails and because of payments in cash, then they hard to disprove. Just as they are hard to prove.
It is understandable that defenders of Rajoy point to Bárcenas's apparent immorality or criminality, as the president of the Balearics has in asking questions as to how Bárcenas came by so many millions of euros. But is Bárcenas's immorality evidence of something else, something that he was aware would come out at some point? For what he was planning? A web of immorality within the Partido Popular that began to be spun many years ago?
It is, however, a different web - one of intrigue - that prevents the consequence of alleged payments to Rajoy occurring, namely his resignation. By any standards of morality, faced with evidence, he should resign. But the evidence is key, and more than a list of entries in a ledger, the evidence now begins to suggest the existence of a web of intrigue, deceit and mistrust that has enveloped the PP.
Untangling this web is likely to be what saves Rajoy. There is proof, but there is no proof. The evidence is key, but the evidence is not evidence. And because of this, the absence of transparency and the presence of secrecy in Spanish politics are exposed. The political system is exposed once more to the accusation of inherent corruption. Truths about this system are devilishly difficult to discover, because of the web that encircles it.
Rajoy, playing the blind man to the alleged evidence, comes before the press at a think-tank and says that green shoots are emerging. They will emerge not this year, not next year but in 2015. He says that economic recovery is coming, but how can one trust his word? One cannot. The recovery goalpost moves. There is no recovery, just as there is no evidence and no proof. Bankrupt. Or all but bankrupt in economic terms. In moral terms? Bankrupt, too, but this assumes there ever has been morality.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Rajoy And The Bárcenas Revelations
Let's just posit a hypothetical situation. "The Guardian" newspaper runs a sensational story which purports to reveal information from ledgers controlled by a treasurer for the Conservative Party. These ledgers are not the official accounts. They are separate accounts. They show receipts from various businesses and payments to various individuals, including members of the party. These payments are not legal. One of the recipients identified in the story and in copies of what are said to be ledgers is David Cameron.
This treasurer is then arrested and ultimately sent to prison with an extremely high bail running into many millions which he almost certainly cannot pay. He can expect to wait months, perhaps years to come to trial on matters not related directly to "The Guardian" story. He is suspected of major tax fraud of his own.
Some months after "The Guardian" runs its story, "The Telegraph" runs a similar story. Its editor speaks to this treasurer just prior to his going into prison and publishes the contents of this interview along with copies of ledgers of allegedly illegal payments, including those to David Cameron when he held a more junior post in the Conservative Party.
The use of "The Guardian" and "The Telegraph" in this hypothetical situation is relevant to what has happened in Spain. One is a newspaper which leans to the left, one is a paper which leans to the right. Political sympathies do not, however, prevent "The Telegraph" from taking forward what "The Guardian" had initiated some months before.
For "The Guardian" and "The Telegraph", read "El País" and "El Mundo". For the unnamed treasurer in the hypothetical story, read Luis Bárcenas. For David Cameron, read Mariano Rajoy. The hypothetical is not hypothetical. It is reality.
But to continue with the hypothetical, what do you think would happen if the story in the British press was in fact true; that David Cameron's name had appeared in ledgers of allegedly illegal payments? Not just in "The Guardian", which might be considered less sympathetic to Cameron, but also in "The Telegraph", which could be considered to be generally sympathetic. Two major reports, some months apart, revealing the same type of information.
One thing is for certain. The matter would be a massive scandal. It would be all over the media. It would be the only matter which mattered. Presumptions of innocence of course, but could Cameron stay in his position? Or would he feel compelled to step down or be forced to step down?
It is impossible to say for certain, because this is only an hypothesis, but one would think that he would resign. His position would surely become untenable, so great would be the clamour, so massive would be the coverage.
There again, maybe he wouldn't resign, because the Conservative Party categorically denies that these separate ledgers form part of its accounting. It denies that it has ever paid "bonuses" or monthly salaries without complying with tax requirements. It implies (more than implies) that these ledgers are made up. It threatens to sue "The Guardian" for the original story, sue any other part of the media which repeats the accusations and sue the treasurer as well, and he, the treasurer, initially denies that he is in fact the author of the ledgers. When "The Telegraph" in essence repeats the original allegations, what can the party do but continue to deny that the ledgers are false?
But people - the public, other politicians and the media - would be highly suspicious. Firstly "The Guardian", now "The Telegraph". And one question that many would ask is why someone would go to such lengths to produce supposedly fabricated accounts which, as writing experts suggest (the accounts are handwritten), have entries that indicate they were made not at one go but over a long period of time.
However, some analysts are not convinced that this is a clear-cut case. For starters, there is the fact that the treasurer is facing a fraud charge of his own, that it is widely thought that he feels that he has been hung out to dry by the party. What he has to say could of course be accurate, but is there some element of revenge at play? It's hard to say, but one keeps coming back to why someone would keep supposedly false accounts for such a long period of time, ones which suggest two decades of illegal payments.
But, but ... Ever more buts and what-ifs. What if "The Telegraph" has an agenda. It doesn't agree with Cameron on everything. It reflects divisions within the party. It may be sympathetic to opposing voices within the party. Who can tell? And why has it chosen to sit on its interview with the treasurer for a few weeks? Indeed, how is it that it spoke to him? What he had to say to the paper and what the paper has published could well be dynamite, but the treasurer has spoken to a newspaper. Not to a judge. Can Cameron be condemned on the basis of a newspaper's findings alone?
All the above reflects how the story has played out and is being played out through the two Spanish newspapers. A judge may now get involved. "El Mundo" has presented its findings to the Audiencia Nacional, a special high court. It would have to consider if the ledgers are true and that they show, in the case of payments allegedly made to Rajoy when he was a minister in the Aznar government, that they contravene a law of 1995 which expressly forbid additional payments to members of a government, be these payments public or private.
Rajoy, one imagines, would not step down. He didn't when "El País" first broke the story, and the latest revelations don't fundamentally move the story on, except in the sense that they are revelations. Supposedly.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
This treasurer is then arrested and ultimately sent to prison with an extremely high bail running into many millions which he almost certainly cannot pay. He can expect to wait months, perhaps years to come to trial on matters not related directly to "The Guardian" story. He is suspected of major tax fraud of his own.
Some months after "The Guardian" runs its story, "The Telegraph" runs a similar story. Its editor speaks to this treasurer just prior to his going into prison and publishes the contents of this interview along with copies of ledgers of allegedly illegal payments, including those to David Cameron when he held a more junior post in the Conservative Party.
The use of "The Guardian" and "The Telegraph" in this hypothetical situation is relevant to what has happened in Spain. One is a newspaper which leans to the left, one is a paper which leans to the right. Political sympathies do not, however, prevent "The Telegraph" from taking forward what "The Guardian" had initiated some months before.
For "The Guardian" and "The Telegraph", read "El País" and "El Mundo". For the unnamed treasurer in the hypothetical story, read Luis Bárcenas. For David Cameron, read Mariano Rajoy. The hypothetical is not hypothetical. It is reality.
But to continue with the hypothetical, what do you think would happen if the story in the British press was in fact true; that David Cameron's name had appeared in ledgers of allegedly illegal payments? Not just in "The Guardian", which might be considered less sympathetic to Cameron, but also in "The Telegraph", which could be considered to be generally sympathetic. Two major reports, some months apart, revealing the same type of information.
One thing is for certain. The matter would be a massive scandal. It would be all over the media. It would be the only matter which mattered. Presumptions of innocence of course, but could Cameron stay in his position? Or would he feel compelled to step down or be forced to step down?
It is impossible to say for certain, because this is only an hypothesis, but one would think that he would resign. His position would surely become untenable, so great would be the clamour, so massive would be the coverage.
There again, maybe he wouldn't resign, because the Conservative Party categorically denies that these separate ledgers form part of its accounting. It denies that it has ever paid "bonuses" or monthly salaries without complying with tax requirements. It implies (more than implies) that these ledgers are made up. It threatens to sue "The Guardian" for the original story, sue any other part of the media which repeats the accusations and sue the treasurer as well, and he, the treasurer, initially denies that he is in fact the author of the ledgers. When "The Telegraph" in essence repeats the original allegations, what can the party do but continue to deny that the ledgers are false?
But people - the public, other politicians and the media - would be highly suspicious. Firstly "The Guardian", now "The Telegraph". And one question that many would ask is why someone would go to such lengths to produce supposedly fabricated accounts which, as writing experts suggest (the accounts are handwritten), have entries that indicate they were made not at one go but over a long period of time.
However, some analysts are not convinced that this is a clear-cut case. For starters, there is the fact that the treasurer is facing a fraud charge of his own, that it is widely thought that he feels that he has been hung out to dry by the party. What he has to say could of course be accurate, but is there some element of revenge at play? It's hard to say, but one keeps coming back to why someone would keep supposedly false accounts for such a long period of time, ones which suggest two decades of illegal payments.
But, but ... Ever more buts and what-ifs. What if "The Telegraph" has an agenda. It doesn't agree with Cameron on everything. It reflects divisions within the party. It may be sympathetic to opposing voices within the party. Who can tell? And why has it chosen to sit on its interview with the treasurer for a few weeks? Indeed, how is it that it spoke to him? What he had to say to the paper and what the paper has published could well be dynamite, but the treasurer has spoken to a newspaper. Not to a judge. Can Cameron be condemned on the basis of a newspaper's findings alone?
All the above reflects how the story has played out and is being played out through the two Spanish newspapers. A judge may now get involved. "El Mundo" has presented its findings to the Audiencia Nacional, a special high court. It would have to consider if the ledgers are true and that they show, in the case of payments allegedly made to Rajoy when he was a minister in the Aznar government, that they contravene a law of 1995 which expressly forbid additional payments to members of a government, be these payments public or private.
Rajoy, one imagines, would not step down. He didn't when "El País" first broke the story, and the latest revelations don't fundamentally move the story on, except in the sense that they are revelations. Supposedly.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
