Two years more in provisional prison for Granados given hidden ‘enormous patrimony’
The National Court has ratified the extension for risk of fleeing on Francisco Granados given ‘it has been established his family, friends and witnesses have been blocking the investigation by even making threats’.
The second quarter of the Penal Hall of the National Court has rejected an appeal made by Francisco Granados
against the decision of judge Eloy Velasco
, the instructor in the ‘Púnica case’ to extend his preventative custody for a maximum of four years, given he has spent two years already – he entered jail on October 31, 2014.
Francisco Granados – Archive photo
For the magistrates – Ángela Murillo, Carmen Paloma González and Juan Francisco Martel – ‘the risk of taking flight is generic given his opportunity to destroy evidence which has been piling up against him’ and ‘it has become patent of his money laundering of money of dubious origin’ and put as an example ‘the discovery of nearly a million € in the home of his in-laws.
In addition, ‘there exists eloquent data of the existence of putting pressure on witnesses and making threats in an attempt to distort the evidence and manipulate the investigation and others under investigation’, a circumstance which the Chamber considers ‘plainly vigilant’, as recognised Judge Velasco.
The tribunal added ‘the money found in Switzerland’ of which he claims there is no evidence, was produced by his earnings when he worked in the Societé General Bank, as alleges his defence.
‘In any case, there exists enough data to reveal his extreme wealth which he had tried to hide’ underlines the auto.
According to the chamber, the investigation deduced that Granados ‘had validated and exploited his public cargos for which he had been named, which affected his behaviour towards investing from 2,000 in a great number of real estate investments moving billions of €’ notes the resolution.
For the court, ‘there is much incriminating evidence to think he obtained copious payments used to evade judicial action’.
This possibility has been uncovered by the magistrates as ‘careful activity to establish accounts offshore under names difficult to discover’