The president of the Alicante Chamber of Commerce, Carlos Baño, was arrested this Friday as part of an investigation launched by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office into the management of so-called consumption vouchers in various municipalities of the province. This case has once again shaken the business community in Alicante and sparked a strong political controversy over the handling of public funds intended to support local commerce. The scheme involved consumers paying a portion of the voucher's value, with the administration covering the rest through subsidies channeled through town halls and collaborating entities. The fact that this instrument is now under judicial scrutiny profoundly alters its public perception. For now, the case remains open with reserved proceedings. The case also touches upon a particularly sensitive program, as the consumption vouchers had been defended as direct aid to boost sales, consumption, and activity in cities hit by the decline in purchasing power and the effects of the post-pandemic crisis. The justice system must determine whether the detected irregularities constitute crimes and if there were personal responsibilities in the program's administration. In this context, the company Nexo Alicante Retail S.L., created by Facpyme, is also mentioned, whose actions are also part of the investigative focus. Baño's arrest has had a direct impact on the political and business landscape of Alicante, where his figure had occupied a central place not only for his role in the Chamber of Commerce but also for his influence on the province's SME fabric. Investigators from the UDEF, specifically the money laundering group of the Economic and Financial Crime Unit, sought documentation and computer information on the traceability of these aids, their administrative management, and the eventual destination of the funds. The program under suspicion had been presented as a tool to reactivate activity after the economic blow of the pandemic. The investigation is trying to determine if there were irregularities in this circuit, if there was an eventual subsidy fraud, and if any of the structures used to manage the system could have served to obtain undue benefits with public money. One of the points that generates the most interest in the case is the role of intermediary entities.
