Wednesday, March 31, 2021
Home Breaking News The Police conclude that the Neurona company tried to deceive the judge...
- Advertisement -

The Police conclude that the Neurona company tried to deceive the judge by justifying its work for Podemos


Party financing

Updated

Tuesday, March 30, 2021 –
22:23

The Udef warns that “some works” carried out by the consultant “do not correspond to the purpose of the contract”

- Advertisement -

Pablo Iglesias, in an act as Vice President of the Government, in March.
POOL / DANI GAGO

The Economic and Fiscal Crime Unit (Udef) of the National Police concludes that the Chavista consultancy Neurona has tried to justify its charges from Podemos with jobs that have nothing to do with the 2019 electoral campaign.

In a report that you just sent to the judge Juan Jos Escalonilla, the Judicial Police maintains that “it has been observed that some of the works presented” in the Court of Instruction number 42 of Madrid “are likely not to have been used for the pre-campaign and campaign in the general elections of 2019”, which is why that officially the training led by Pablo Iglesias hired this Mexican company for 363,000 euros.

- Advertisement -

“In the memory delivered,” the police report continues, “there are files that do not correspond to the purpose of the contract, either because they are outside the time frame based on the date that appears in the file’s metadata or because once its content displayed, it does not correspond to that purpose.

The Police emphasize that “in the documentation provided there is no project, report, dossier or log detailing the work carried out by the company, as reflected in the contract, nor the logo or anagram of the company. Neuron Community or from the subcontracted company Creative Advice Interactive“.

Relationship with United We Can

An “extreme” that contrasts “with what can be observed in open sources regarding the Neurona Comunidad society, where its trademark can be distinguished in work carried out for other electoral campaigns”.

Likewise, the Udef emphasizes that “in the vast majority of the files analyzed the author is unknown” and that, when it has been identified, “it should be noted that most of them are closely related to the United We Can political formation, such as the case of ngela Medialdea, Patricia Pinta O Javier Ivez“.

Therefore, “these are files whose authors would be unrelated to the company hired to carry out the work, Neurona Comunidad, SL, or the subcontracted company Creative Advice Interactive.

“In the remaining authors identified, it has not been possible to verify any labor or contractual relationship with the winning company, Neurona Comunidad, which does not have any worker, or with the subcontracted Creative Advice Interactive”, he adds.

Irregularities detected

As if that were not enough, the researchers have discovered that some of the files submitted “are outside the established deadline”, according to their metadata. Nor do many of the files presented by Neurona to the judge conform “to the content or purpose of the contract, since once the product has been viewed in its entirety, it seems to have another purpose than that of the general elections of April 28, 2019 “.

Finally, among the list of irregularities detected by the Udef, files have been identified that “correspond to captures or downloads of television programs.” And even Neurona has come to deliver “files repeated several times.”

Regarding the invoices that support the contract with Podemos and the subsequent subcontracting carried out by Neurona, the Udef notes that “the concepts they present are so generic that it is not possible to determine a direct relationship between the contracted concepts and those invoiced”.

In turn, it certifies the irregularities uncovered by EL MUNDO in relation to the payment orders for these invoices, which have incompatible dates. Not in vain, “invoices are ordered that are issued the next day” and that, therefore, constitute an “impossible” scenario.

As a culmination of this string of inconsistencies, the Udef adds that “the contract presented between the parties also appears with different dates.” Thus, “electronic signatures are with dates after the end of the service and once the contract has expired.”

According to the criteria of

The Trust Project

Know more





Source site www.elmundo.es

- Advertisement -
RELATED ARTICLES
- Advertisement -

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisment -

Most Popular

Recent Comments

- Advertisement -