The gas company Messer declares that it only sought advice from the Montoro case office

Messer defends before the judge of the Montoro case that he only went to Equipo Económico to clarify laws that he considered ambiguous.

1 minute

fotonoticia 20260529151346 1920

fotonoticia 20260529151346 1920

Add DEMÓCRATA to Google

Published

1 minute

Most read

The defense of the gas company Messer, investigated in the "Montoro case," has maintained before the investigating judge that they resorted to the law firm Equipo Económico solely to request advice, understanding that there were regulations whose wording generated doubts.

According to legal sources who have explained to Europa Press, this was stated this Friday in their appearance before the investigating magistrate from Tarragona, Rubén Rus.

The representation of Messer, which has limited itself to answering the questions posed by its own defense, has reiterated that its actions were limited to requesting technical guidance because they perceived "interpretable sections."

On the same day, Karl Hauck also appeared as an investigated party, due to his position as CEO of Messer, although he exercised his right to remain silent and did not provide a statement, according to the same sources.

With these proceedings, the judge has begun the round of interrogations of the companies accused of allegedly obtaining tax advantages through regulations promoted by the Ministry of Finance, which was headed by Cristóbal Montoro, who is also under investigation, and in whose processing Equipo Económico, a firm co-founded by the former minister when he was out of politics and from which he claims to have distanced himself upon returning to office, would have intervened.

Messer has been the first company summoned to testify in the proceedings, while Air Liquide and Praxair are scheduled to appear on June 19 and Carburos Metálicos on June 22.

At the beginning of this month, Eduardo Gil and Jacobina Escámez, former executives of the gas company Praxair and the first investigated parties to appear before the court, also decided not to answer questions, alleging that several appeals are still pending resolution, including those that question the instructor's jurisdiction.

In this case, various individuals and legal entities are listed as investigated parties for possible crimes of bribery, fraud against public administration, prevarication, influence peddling, prohibited negotiations, business corruption, and document forgery.