Businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés presented a call directly before the Provincial Court of Madrid against the order of Judge Juan Carlos Peinado of August 22, which resulted in three days of entry and search of his home and the headquarters of his companies and the seizure of his mobile phone in the hospital where he is admitted. He denounces the disproportion and the lack of motivation of the measure.
The document, which ABC has seen, asks the court to overturn that decision because it considers that the evidence supporting it is the result of “an illogical and arbitrary inferential judgment” which does not support such a serious interference in the employer’s rights as entry and registration. “To motivate is not to capture in the Order, by a copy/paste, different and well-founded judicial resolutions”, he emphasizes.
The judge, as revealed by ABC, adopted the decision in search of direct evidence of the crimes he was investigating, considering that he already had enough evidence to suspect a relationship between the dates on which Barrabés met Begoña Gómez and access for your business group to the various sources of public markets.
It relies specifically on the meetings between the businessman and Gómez, which he reported in his statement, as well as his participation as a teacher at an extraordinary professor title that she led. In the background, the reports of the UCO of the Civil Guard which listed all these public contracts without showing a priori signs of irregularity.
“It really produces blush This may be reflected in a judicial resolution as an indication to proceed with the sacrifice of a fundamental right such as that of the inviolability of the home, a series of indications devoid of any justification“, argues Barrabés’ defense, led by Javier Sánchez-Junco.
Regarding the procedure itself, he denounces that the order authorized “the seizure of all objects or effects which could be directly linked to the alleged commission of the crimes”, which according to him amounts to ordering a seizure “in an absolutely generic way“typical of a ‘prospective’ investigation. “It intends to seize ‘everything’ related to an alleged crime for which there is not the slightest indication of its commission,” he says.
Add to this that the diligence included the intervention on the devices that Barrabés had in his possession at the hospital, “which is really surprising due to the lack of consideration and humanity what that entails,” and that it involved leaving the businessman without a telephone to communicate.
“As if the above were not enough,” he continues, “we must point out that, in addition, proceedings are underway on facts that probably do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, since they involve European funds whose competence has been assumed by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. He maintains that Peinado’s intention is to “look for” something that justifies the continuity of the file.
