The City of Totana will not have to return the 2.4 million euros that it received through an urban development agreement promoted by the Galician businessman Manuel Núñez Arias, owner of the Inmonuar company, because it was the origin of the corruption scandal known by the Totem case , which ended the conviction of eleven defendants.
Thus it is provided in the judgment of the Contentious Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Region of Murcia (TJRM) that estimates the appeal presented by the Murcian council and annuls that of Court number 4 of this city, which condemned it to return said sum to said company.
In its appeal, the city council claimed, among other considerations, that it was not appropriate to address the claim made by Núñez Arias, who was convicted in 2012 in the Totem case for an attempted bribery offense, because the urban agreement was declared void, for illegal, by the TSJRM itself in that sentence.
Among those convicted then there was also the one who had been mayor of the municipality and regional deputy Juan Morales, the other signatory of the agreement, to which various penalties were imposed for the crimes of bribery, money laundering, falsification and embezzlement of public flows, among others .
The TSJRM comments that after that condemnatory resolution, the court informed the council that the agreement signed with the Núñez Arias company for the implementation of a real estate development in the municipality of Murcia had been declared void.
In his lawsuit, the businessman said that he appealed against the alleged dismissal, by silent administration, of his request for the return of the 2.4 million euros entered in the municipal coffers, filed in June 2010, and the court gave the reason and condemned the city council to reimburse said sum, with legal interests.
Now, the TSJRM Chamber has revoked that decision and declares the appeal filed by the Núñez Arias company inadmissible.
He comments that this alleged dismissal due to administrative silence never existed, while, on the contrary, there were two firm and not appealed resolutions in which the city council decided that the return of said sum was not appropriate because the contract was void and It had an illicit or criminal origin.
Source: Ayuntamiento de Totana / Foto: archivo Murcia.com