The PSOE and Más Madrid have appealed the decision of the 19th investigating judge of Madrid to reject the extension of the investigation that the parties had requested against Alberto González Amador, partner of Sabel Díaz Ayuso, now accused of two tax crimes and the falsification of documents.
The requests for a popular indictment, led by both parties, were supported by a tax report included in the procedure and which concludes that the partner of the Madrid president could have committed other crimes in addition to those accused.
Both sides criticize that the procedures were rejected “in their entirety in a generic manner in the order” of the judge in charge of the case, without any argument being put forward as to why they are considered “individually useless” and that this “produces helplessness” to the popular accusation.
The appeal insists that these “proceedings are related to the subject of the investigation since they prove the fraudulent nature of the actions of the persons investigated, who, in a coordinated manner and in collaboration with them, developed a commercial strategy that the prosecutor calls in his writing as “remarkable because they are not typical of normal commercial practices.”
On June 24, the popular accusation demanded in writing the completion of several procedures such as the investigation of the business relationship of the regional president’s partner, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, with the Quirón company; that their accounts from 2019 to 2022 be analyzed; and to provide the deed of sale of their home from 2020 to 2024.
From Más Madrid, they stressed that there would be indications of a greater number of crimes that would require more time of investigation and study with the aim of a possible expansion of tax delinquency, falsification of documents and accounting delinquency. In addition, the PSOE and Más Madrid considered that Ayuso’s partner could have committed two crimes of unfair administration, false accounting, commercial bribery and accounting crime. The prosecution suspects that there are “other false invoices that could aggravate the responsibility for the amounts defrauded.”
The cited appeal points out that the documents collected in the case may “hide the payment of commissions for the award of Quirón Prevención contracts to Maxwell Cremona.” [sociedad de González Amador] which increased its turnover scandalously and surprisingly bought the wife of the general director of Quirón Prevention. This is a “company with practically no assets” that González Amador’s wife bought “for the exorbitant sum of 499,836.92 euros and then sold it to him for 3,300 euros at the very moment when Quirón and Maxwell were transferring a large part of the invoice, that is, when it could have had more value.
“The above is so striking that the public prosecutor himself sees criminal signs in this operation, as does the tax authorities, which is why it is necessary to agree on the investigation procedures,” he concludes.
