The lawyer acting as a public plaintiff before the Court of Accounts, Francisco Javier Flores Vaquerizo, has opposed the possible dismissal of the proceedings opened for the purchase of a penthouse by Planifica Madrid in the district of Chamberí, due to an alleged damage of 437,058.46 euros to public funds, as stated in a document filed on October 19 and to which Europa Press has had access.
In his brief, Francisco Javier Flores Vaquerizo demands that an investigating delegate be appointed to analyze the operation and maintains that the legal assumptions that would allow the dismissal of the procedure are not met. In his opinion, before making any decision, the circumstances of the acquisition of the property must be clarified.
The lawyer links the possible damage to the purchase and sale deed granted on April 14, 2026 and points to the CEO of Planifica Madrid, Pedro C. R., as a possible direct accounting responsible, whose actions he requests to be investigated.
The difference between the price paid and the appraisal
According to him, Planifica Madrid disbursed 6,679,942.65 euros, including taxes and expenses, for a property whose appraisal attributed a value of 6,242,884.19 euros. This difference, of 437,058.46 euros, constitutes, in his opinion, a possible economic detriment that must be examined by the Court of Accounts.
Flores Vaquerizo adds that the fact that the property continues to be part of the company's assets does not eliminate the eventual damage, since the alleged damage derives from the alleged overprice paid in the purchase.
In addition, he recalls that a public offer for sale of a lot related to the property, for 6,694,201 euros, was deserted on September 17, 2026, without any offer being submitted.
Challenge to the procedure and right to a hearing
The opposition to the dismissal is also accompanied by a challenge to the processing of the procedure. The lawyer maintains that he has not received a copy of the allegations presented on October 16 by the Community of Madrid, which also acted on behalf of Planifica Madrid, nor of the attached documentation.
Both representations requested the dismissal of the proceedings. Afterwards, an order issued on October 19 agreed to hear the Public Prosecutor's Office again, for a period of five days, on the advisability of appointing an investigating delegate or dismissing the procedure.
The lawyer understands that article 46.2 of the Law on the Functioning of the Court of Accounts recognizes the right to a hearing for those who have exercised public action and are duly represented, so he considers that the procedure must allow the intervention of all legitimate parties before deciding on the dismissal.
Claim regarding the representation of Planifica Madrid
Francisco Javier Flores Vaquerizo also requests that the title by which the Community of Madrid represents and defends Planifica Madrid in the procedure be accredited, given that the public company requests the dismissal of proceedings aimed at clarifying a possible damage to its own funds.
In this regard, he requests that it be specified which body of the company adopted this position and whether the affected administrators observed the duty of abstention mentioned in his brief. Likewise, he reiterates his request for measures to ensure expert evidence related to the property while it remains offered for sale.
In his final petition, he demands that pending issues be resolved, that the appointment of an investigating delegate be proposed, and that the dismissal not be agreed upon before he can exercise his right to a hearing.
