“Red Devil” bus owners who did not even provide service on the streets of the capital were compensated and some who owned a single bus were compensated multiple times and owners of buses that operated on trunk routes and had already received compensation introduced the vehicles to the transport service in the corridors, for which they were compensated again said anti-corruption prosecutor Anilú Batista at the preliminary hearing of  541 people for the alleged embezzlement, in the case of irregular compensation to bus owners in 2010, when the Metrobús system was introduced.

Batista also told the court that former officials of the Land Transit and Transportation Authority (ATTT), the concessionaires and transport companies agreed to collect compensation that caused an injury to the State of $24 million.

She explained that, on occasions, the owner of a single bus was compensated several times, and added that the then officials of the General Directorate and the Subdirectorate of the Transport  Authority (ATTT) were aware of the situation.

She said that those compensated on trunk routes were re-introduced in the transport service in the corridors, for which they were compensated again.

ATTT officials on that date were responsible for supervising the compensation process and setting controls to prevent the owner of a single bus from being compensated more than once.

Money was even given to bus owners who did not even provide the service in the capital. The prosecutor stressed that this situation could be corroborated through visual inspections carried out by the prosecution at the ATTT, as well as by affidavits and inquiries that were taken during the investigation.

On Wednesday, March 16, she will present the connection and direct participation of the former ATTT officials, as well as personnel from the Comptroller General's Office, who at that time failed to comply with their work of monitoring and, therefore, allowed the irregularities which caused damage to the State of $24 million.

Rolando Rodríguez, defense attorney, insisted that it is a prescribed case. He argued that the criminal action was filed more than 10 years ago, but the prosecution insisted on holding a preliminary hearing.