Nullity of the Urban Plan of Cartagena

The doctrine implicitly prevents giving (total or partial) final approval to a General Plan that incurs in "substantial deficiencies".

Deficiencies can be "substantial", due to being too many, due to the total land surface affected, or because they largely affect to General Systems and structural elements of urban planning and even territorial. In such a case no approval can be granted; not even a partial approval.

Only the requirement of alterations of “minor relevance” allows granting a Final Approval subject to correction of deficiencies.

Final approval in this case was made with many deficiencies.

The deficiencies affected all elements of the town, and almost all the territory. The defects were of substantial consideration, and therefore capable of producing situations of legal uncertainty, and of uncertainty in the development and application of the Plan.

The ulterior delegated confirmation of the corrections could not validate the Urban Plan because of those essential deficiencies. The Urban Plan should not have been approved, not even subject to correction of deficiencies.

The nullity of the approval of the General Plan does produce as a result the invalidity of the confirmation of corrections, since the Plan does not exist anymore. 

(Subject to appeal)

See STSJ MU 421/2015













IMAGEN FLIKR CREARIVE COMMONS  jttps://www.flickr.com/photos/cornelluniversitylibrary/3610650989/in/photolist-6v4wKg-oePNoS-oePNey-ow5ipa

Self money laundering proceedings of a former condemned crime

The Case Law has not been unambiguous:

    1) The crime of money laundering is an autonomous offense which defines and describes a different and specific behavior. You are faced with two offenses together in real competition, and not to a form of absorption. The coincidence of authors in the fund generating activity and in the money laundering is an obvious real contest and not a mode of absorption of one behavior by the other.

    

    Both  behaviors acquire autonomous criminological relevance and allow the joint consideration  as a sum of criminal activities. Both activities have a different nature and affect to different legal interests.

    2) Other times the Case Law has understood that any crime in general (especially crimes against property and public health) imply a vocation of economic exploitation, and the double punishment is not possible to the extent that enjoying the illegal profits  is part of the structure the former crime. Therefore the punishment on the initial offense includes the laundering, so that further punishment would infringe the principle of non bis in idem (no double penalty for the same crime).

    

    Transforming the proceeds of a crime for which you have been found guilty must be considered as part of that crime, since otherwise the same assets would be subject to a double criminal punishment.

    

    There must be a complete identity between the authorship of the former crime and the money laundering. When wealth is generated through a permanent illegal behavior, this heritage of illicit origin is disconnected to an specific crime. In this case, the double punishment is appropriate.

IMAGEN FLIKR CREATIVE  COMMONS https://www.flickr.com/photos/tuinkabouter/388033988/in/photolist-AhLZb-6WYVJM-e5NwPF-m5PBg-bzzrN6-ieH9VK-pQnMat-9qJdSa-cBBsah-ryES6K-8AuaCe-awUcoP-ebHRSC-8hGWpZ-7CFoQf-qsEqRF-8yFJY5-oUxNBX-8gufG7-7uv6Do-bmEz4W-73M5BG-2svm7-gwUMyz-5jWKmb-9bie9P-7wJDp-3JSERs-adHLfk-7cFJmb-hLw1X-jKGRYt-5YL96p-5YMBDa-bq82BQ-7WyWjR-583TU5-4h4kon-6StbdK-89uppR-kUM2T-53tKW2-fB76gN-792qs-rKznUV-eC7AHQ-6SR9xt-7LKHRy-2ke8E-91K5Qw