Businessman Alberto González Amador, associate of Madrid President Isabel Díaz Ayuso, asked the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court to reject the appeals filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office against the opening of an investigation into revealing secrets in Attorney General Álvaro García. Ortiz and the provincial prosecutor of Madrid, Pilar Rodríguez.
González Amador’s defense criticized both a “procedural action of absolute lack of collaboration” and “obstruction” of the investigation, as indicated in a letter known to EL ESPAÑOL.
The Criminal Chamber decided on October 15 to investigate whether García Ortiz and Rodríguez had leaked to the press emails in which a lawyer for González Amador admitted that he had “certainly” committed two tax crimes.
These emails were sent to the economic crimes prosecutor’s office to seek a compliance agreement. They were first disclosed —“by defense sources”— to some media who distorted reality and claimed that it was the prosecution who offered a deal to Ayuso’s boyfriend, although he later withdrew it to take him to court.
This false information motivated, on the night of March 13, the Attorney General to ask the Attorney General of Madrid for the email chain between González Amador’s lawyer and the Economic Crimes Prosecutor Julián Salto, in order to write an informative note denying the lies published. Previously, on the night of March 13 and in the morning of the 14th, several media outlets published the verbatim text of the emails.
This is the subject of the Supreme Court’s investigation, which is currently limited to determining whether García Ortiz and Rodríguez are responsible for the leak of these emails. Last week, the prosecution asked the investigating judge, Ángel Hurtado, to summon him to testify. Miguel Angel Rodríguez.
Díaz Ayuso’s chief of staff published a tweet on the night of March 13 in which —coincident with reports citing “defense sources”— stated that “the prosecution proposes a settlement to Mr. González by email; before he can respond, the prosecution itself declares that it has received orders ‘from above’ so that there is no agreement and then they go to trial. “
La Abogacía del Estado, que ha asumido la defensa de Álvaro García Ortiz y Pilar Rodríguez, ha recurrido, de todos modos, la apertura de la causa asegurando que “no hay ningún indicio sólido” de que “ningún miembro del Ministerio Fiscal” haya filtrado correo alguno.
“Pareja de la presidenta”
La defensa de González Amador ha impugnado esos recursos en un escrito en el que señala que la Abogacía del Estado “obvia” la investigación ya realizada en el Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (TSJM), en la que se puso de manifiesto que Pilar Rodríguez ya se interesó el 7 de marzo por la denuncia contra González Amador redactada por el fiscal Salto, al que informó de que era “la pareja de la presidenta de la Comunidad de Madrid”.
“A partir del 7 de marzo”, afirma la defensa, González Amador “dejó de ser tratado como un ciudadano anónimo por Pilar Rodríguez y Álvaro García Ortiz, pasando a tener el tratamiento asociado a ser la ‘pareja de la presidenta de la Comunidad de Madrid’, lo que ha supuesto que toda la información, documentación, datos personales y contenido reservado consecuencia del ejercicio de la función pública preprocesal atribuida al Ministerio Fiscal haya sido objeto de revelación pública”, afirma.
El escrito señala que el fiscal general “obligó a otros miembros de la carrera fiscal a publicar la nota informativa del 14 de marzo en contra de su voluntad” y “permaneció oculto y no comunicó su vinculación material con los hechos desde el 7 de marzo hasta el 11 de junio”.
El fiscal general “manifestó su vinculación material con los hechos después de que el TSJM acordara la necesaria toma de declaración de Almudena Lastra [fiscal superior de Madrid] and Íñigo Corral for June 13, people who were forced to publish the note against their will.
“Two days before the accusation, on June 11, Álvaro García Ortiz registered with the TSJM a letter (which he had already provided to the media the day before) requesting the suspension of the investigation and proceedings of the TSJM and not providing , although it assumes the quality of witness to the facts, no collaboration, information, details or physical or IT support skillful for its forensic analysis linked to the subject of the investigation.
He also criticizes that the Madrid public prosecutor’s office “has not acceded until now” to the TSJM’s request to transmit all communications maintained by the public prosecutor’s office with González Amador’s lawyer and to indicate which members of the public prosecutor’s office have acceded. to these emails.
“Exhaust the investigation”
The defense highlights the “need to continue and exhaust the investigation into the events carried out by María Pilar Rodríguez and Álvaro García Ortiz” and emphasizes that, until now, “up to a total of twelve magistrates, unanimouslyconsidered in their various resolutions” that this was necessary.
He cites, in this regard, investigating judge number 28 of Madrid, Jaime María Serret, who examined the complaint filed by the Madrid Bar Association; to the three judges of the TSJM who admitted González Amador’s complaint (Celso Rodríguez Padrón, José Manuel Suárez Robledano and Francisco José Goyena); to the three judges who heard the appeals before the TSJM (María José Rodríguez Duplá, Matías Madrigal and María Teresa Chacón) and to the five judges of the Supreme Court who decided to open the trial (Manuel Marchena, Juan Ramón Berdugo, Antonio del Moral, Susana Polo and Carmen Lamela).
The latter will be the same ones who will decide on the resources of the prosecution regarding the opening of the file, so it is predictable that they will be rejected.
