The president of the Court of Instruction number 34 of Madrid, Coro Monreal, filed the complaint that VOX had filed against Begoña Gómez for the position of professor and master that she directed at the Complutense University of Madrid after dismissing evidence of the crime of influence peddling that they reported, among other reasons, because she was already running a degree “even before her husband was president of the government.”
In a resolution seen by ABC, the instructor states that after analyzing the story and the annexes to the complaint “we come to the conclusion that the facts reported They do not have the character of a crime. “Well, from the story that has come forward, it is clear that it is based on mere suspicion and conjecture, not on solid evidence.”
The residents of Santiago Abascal filed this complaint in the Madrid courts while the case against Begoña Gómez for corruption in business and influence peddling based on certain contracts was already pending before the Court of Instruction number 41, the same case that ended up also covering her relationship with the extraordinary chair at the Complutense – the rector is in fact accused – and the sponsorships he received.
Judge Monreal received the case by distribution and opened a procedure to analyze the narrative of the complaint, which, in addition to access to the chair itself, concerned a contract for the performance of a training related softwaren which will later appear in his name in the register of trademarks and patents.
“It is said that from the faculty and with public funds, the contacts, visibility and interventions of an institutional sphere such as the UCM were taken advantage of to surreptitiously facilitate the commercial activity” of Begoña Gómez, summarizes the judge, who mentioned a “doubtful adequacy of the legality of the creation and development of the chair and its use for deceptive and personal purposes.”
The judge, however, believes that Vox bases its claims on “conjecture”. Regarding the software procurement file, which fell into the hands of Deloitte, “it does not appear that it was drawn up outside the rules that govern public procurement” and, moreover, the complaint was based on this “from an error” because the date indicated as the start date of the processing was not correct.
Regarding the process itself, “there is no evidence that she (Begoña Gómez) could have exercised over the official who issued the first resolution” that launched the contract file, “nor over the members of the contracting table despite the above. Attached to the file was the list of technical requirements signed by the defendant and prior to the contracting report” which was then signed by the co-director of the chair.
The crime is against a civil servant
“The moral pressure that the defendant should have exerted by taking advantage of her marital relationship should have been exerted on the civil servant or on the president, members and secretary of the Board of Directors” to constitute an offence of influence peddling, the order states.
He adds that although Vox considered it reprehensible that Gómez had drafted this document when she did not have the necessary technical qualifications, “it must be taken into account that the defendant began her relationship with the Complutense University of Madrid even before her husband was President of the Government of the Nation, a family relationship that, in itself, would not justify the existence of a priority in accordance with the jurisprudential doctrine.
