Ricardo Puyol (Granada, 1974) has set out to lead the not easy task of opening an Anti-Fraud Office commissioned by the Junta de Andalucía. He has set himself a maximum term of five years in office, after which he will return to the magistracy, from which has instructed cases of the magnitude of Malaya or Goldfinger, in which Sean Connery was investigated. His office has been open since September, but it is already at full capacity.
-They have been open for almost five months now, but many people don’t know them yet, what exactly do they do?
-The fraud office and corruption in Andalusia is an institution that fulfills a United Nations mandate. In 2003 it was established that, together with the improvement of all the regressive fight springs, criminal fight against corruption; urges the signatory states to the treaty to establish internal offices in the administration to develop effective preventive measures against corruption. The creation of OLAF in Europe falls within this scope. In Spain there are some communities that have created anti-fraud offices in this area. what it does the autonomous community is to comply with international law, something that the Spanish state has not finished doing yet.
-In this sense, is there a need for more anti-fraud culture in Spain?
-To try to alleviate this deficit is what the Office against fraud and corruption comes to. We will try to incorporate all the reforms and improvements in the fight against corruption in the new public transparency policies. It is a legislative line that was already started around the year 2010 by the European Community.
– They have been with the mailboxes open for five months, how many complaints have they received so far?
– Around 35 complaints. The law gives us investigative tasks in what is the detection of fraud, but not in the disciplinary correction that can be carried out. The function of the Office is to establish the external channel within the scope of the Junta de Andalucía of all the local corporations of Andalusia, including the university administration. Once we receive the information, we make a credibility judgment, detect fraud and notify the units of each administration that are responsible for disciplinary correction of this possible fraud. Yes indeed, they will have to report information on how much and to what extent the fraud has been corrected.
-That is in the correction, but you have said that it will also have prevention functions.
-As far as prevention is concerned, We are going to make codes of good practice, we are going to develop pedagogical, informative functions; with prevention courses for all officials in fraud prevention. And, above all, we have functions in a new area that is the protection of the complainant. In 2019, the European Union in a directive establishes a legal statute for the comprehensive protection of people in public settings who decide to denounce the possible commission of an irregularity in the field of their administration.
The officials will be, so to speak, your main partners.
-The field of action civil service is the main market in which we are going to move, so to speak.
-With an anti-fraud Office it will be much easier to report.
-It is clear, because the office will adopt all the precautions for the complete anonymization of the person who denounces. Any person who has knowledge, does not have to be an official, of the commission of a possible irregularity can inform the office.
“If we had been open it would have been more difficult to commit fraud in training courses or ERE”
– Now high officials of the Board are entering prison for the case of the ERE, would it have been avoidable with your office?
–I think if. I don’t know to what extent, but obviously when there is an institution that, preventively and before the courts act, has the ability to detect even fraud at a very early stage, we also have the ability to correct fraud before it goes to more. Many times corruption is not absolute from the outset. I was an examining magistrate in Marbella and the corruption there begins to be minor and as a consequence of the lack of detection it gets worse until it reaches a point where grand corruption occurs. If we had been in operation it would have been more complex to tackle all the fraud in the training courses or in the ERE, I don’t know to what extent, but without a doubt, there would have been one more mechanism to prevent the commission of this fraud.
-In your time in Marbella, in the Malaya case, an office of this type would also have been helpful.
-Undoubtedly. From a technical point of view, the office makes an evaluation of an irregularity that is going to be reported through all the media and in the annual balance that the office makes. There is a very reinforced transparency mechanism. Many times corruption works as a consequence of opacity. The lack of light on a possible corruption, which is saved with the office if it is known by society.
-They have a maximum period of thirty days, if there is no open investigation. It breaks a little with the delay that occurs in justice.
-Can’t make a comparison. Our function ends in the detection of fraud. Our function is clearly informative to the administration we say to: this is happening and you need to stop doing it ASAP. The times of justice are very complex, you have to collect evidence, documentation, you have to take steps… It is more complex.
-Not long ago the mayoress of Marbella was in the limelight for the investigation of her husband and stepson. You who have experience in Marbella, how do you see it?
-I fully trust the actions of justice and the courts. I have nothing to say on the matter. as long as the courts have not carried out any specific action, innocence must be presumed of all people.
-You have set yourself a term of five years at the head of the Office.
-I have an appointment term of five non-renewable years, then I will return to the jurisdiction.
-It is also an exercise in democratic hygiene.
-Totally, even the time seems long to meif I understand that I have completed a stage, it is not a strange idea to leave the position before.
-I spoke before that corruption is also forged in a small crime that is getting bigger. Prolonged tenure in public office favors this. Are you in favor of a maximum number of terms in administrations?
-It is a little more complex, there is the decision of the voters. I it would introduce elements that temporarily delimit in some way the mandate of certain positionsI believe that it favors democratic hygiene and avoids on certain occasions the formation of authentic structures occupied by a group of public officials and biases the possible route of an irregularity.
-Are you concerned about the reform of the crimes of embezzlement and sedition?
-Enormously. My critical judgment is very negative in both substance and form. In 2015, the crime of embezzlement was reformed to allow the prosecution of all kinds of behaviors related to the decapitalization of a public treasury, which is why this reform was very well received. Now we return to some much-exceeded parameters of embezzlement in which the only possible commission is the approval, the subtraction; not the fraudster, so there will be many irregularities that escape the courts. And, secondly, because the penalties are greatly reduced. Now a case of diversion of funds where serious damage to the public treasury is not caused and there is no personal enrichment has a penalty of a fine and disqualification, it will practically go off scot-free. As for the shape, because the circumstances that have motivated the reform are absolutely abject and very spurious, which are to benefit in a review trial a very specific group of convicted or accused with all that that entails. A reform of the Penal Code has been made solely and exclusively to benefit a group of public officialsIn addition to seriously violating the constitutional order, they committed serious crimes of corruption.
