Leon Prosecutors Seek Up to 12 Years in Prison for Coal Subsidy Fraud Defendants. A trial has concluded in Leon against the executives of Hullera Vasco Leonesa and their contractors. They are accused of embezzling €2.1 million through coal substitution and falsified reports. The prosecution is seeking sentences of up to 12 years in prison.
A high-profile trial on large-scale fraud involving government subsidies for coal mining has concluded in León. Prosecutors and state representatives argue that a group of entrepreneurs linked to Hullera Vasco Leonesa and its contractors illegally received €2.1 million between 2011 and 2013 by passing off coal from open-pit mines as production from the Santa Lucía mine. The accused face up to 12 years in prison.
The investigation began after a tip-off was received by tax authorities from an insider familiar with the internal scheme. According to this source, the fraud could have reached €14 million over four years. The investigation revealed that the scheme was built on collusion between several companies: Hullera Vasco Leonesa, Transportes Peal, and Remisa. The case involves entrepreneurs Antonio and Arturo del Valle, Mario Calvo, José Manuel Alonso, and Francisco Luengo, all charged with three counts of tax evasion—one for each year under investigation.
According to the prosecution, fake reports allowed output figures to be inflated by 20–25%. Coal from open-pit sites was brought into the mine and then documented as underground-mined, qualifying it for government subsidies. The case files include emails, Excel spreadsheets with transport and volume details, as well as photographs of trucks delivering coal to the mine's premises. Tax service experts found discrepancies between actual and declared volumes ranging from 17% to 28% over three years, leading to the illegal payouts.
During the hearings, the accused denied involvement in preparing fraudulent documents and financial transactions. Antonio del Valle, former president of Hullera Vasco Leonesa, claimed he was not responsible for the accounts and had not received any requests for documentation. His brother, Arturo del Valle, who held the position of vice president, insisted there had been no complaints from regulatory bodies. Alonso, who managed the contractors, stated that his company merely transported materials and he was unaware of any falsification of reports. Luengo, responsible for external operations, noted that inspectors did not request topographical data, where potential substitutions could have been detected. Calvo, former director of Hullera Vasco Leonesa, also rejected accusations of inflating invoices.
The prosecution believes that all participants acted in concert, as evidenced by correspondence and internal reports. According to the investigation, fictitious reports were compiled daily and monthly, and by the end of the month, production volumes were artificially increased to obtain additional subsidies. Key evidence included spreadsheets with notes about actual and inflated shipments, as well as photographs of trucks delivering coal to the mine.
As reported by Efe, the defendants had previously been involved in other high-profile cases related to Hullera Vasco Leonesa's activities. In particular, the del Valle brothers were acquitted in the case concerning the deaths of six miners in 2013. During the current trial, the defense insisted on the complete acquittal of all those involved.
The court proceedings in León are a continuation of an investigation that was previously detailed in the article about the launch of a trial concerning multimillion-euro fraud in the region's coal industry.
For reference: Hullera Vasco Leonesa is one of the largest coal mining companies in Castile and León, repeatedly attracting attention due to financial and production scandals. In 2014, according to the investigation, actual coal production at the Santa Lucía mine was 500–900 tons per day, while reports claimed figures of up to 4,000 tons. This significantly increased the amount of subsidies received. Experts note that such schemes undermine trust in the state support system and raise questions about the effectiveness of budgetary spending controls.
