Section 23 of the Provincial Court of Madrid plans to resolve this Monday two appeals – one filed by the prosecutor and the other by the defense of Begoña Gómez – on which the future of the investigation into the wife of the president of the government for alleged crimes. influence peddling and corruption in business.
Gómez’s defense demands that the proceedings be archived. Lawyer Antonio Camacho appealed directly to the Court against the resolution issued by the investigating judge, Juan Carlos Peinado, on July 2, in response to a request from the defender to tell him what the investigation is about in the context of the procedure opened at the end of last April due to a complaint from the Manos Médicas union.
The judge’s response was as follows: “all acts, conduct and behavior are subject to investigation which were carried out by the person investigated since her husband is the President of the Spanish Government and which are contained in the initial complaint”.
Part of the Clean Hands complaint was already rejected as a subject of investigation by the Court on May 29, in response to an initial appeal from the prosecutor. This part contained false news about the receipt of a grant by the wife of the president of the government, a grant that a Cantabrian businesswoman also named Begoña Gómez had actually received.
Another part of the complaint referred to two letters of recommendation signed by the wife of Pedro Sánchez in support of projects submitted to two Red.es competitions by a company linked to the businessman Carlos Barrabés, who was professor of the master’s degree that Pedro Sánchez’s wife co-led competitive social transformation at the Complutense University of Madrid.
In this part, Article 23 effectively saw a “sufficient evidentiary basis” to investigate Gómez. But Judge Peinado recused himself on June 7 in favor of the European Prosecutor’s Office regarding the investigation into these contracts, because they were financed by European funds.
The third part of the complaint concerned rescue of the airline Air Europa after the Covid-19 pandemic. The company is owned by Globalia and Manos Cleans’ complaint highlighted the links between Begoña Gómez and Javier Hidalgo, former CEO of the business group.
The defense argues that the Court already excluded the rescue of Air Europa from the procedure in May because, certainly, the magistrates affirmed that Gómez’s relationship with this government decision was a “simple guess“.
However, the magistrates’ resolution added a mention to “striking temporal and personal coincidences” [entre Gómez e Hidalgo] who, when the time comes, will be able to provide new data“, which would not corroborate this exclusion. And this is how Peinado understood it, who instructed the General Intervention of the State to provide a report on this rescue file.
Extension of investigations
Beyond the initial complaint, the monitor conducts investigations into various issues: among six other contracts awarded to Barrabés (“in which there is no element that links Begoña Gómez to them”, underlines the defense) to the activity of the businesswoman at the IE Africa Center, to her hiring by the UCM or to the operation of the master and of the extraordinary chair that Gómez He co-directed at this university.
Recently, in addition, the Third Section of the Madrid Court judged correct the sending to Peinado of a complaint filed in another court regarding the alleged appropriation by Gómez of a software from Complutense University.
In the opinion of the defender, all this demonstrates that the instructor “intends to extend the investigation beyond what the Provincial Court decided”, by opening “a prospective investigation” and “investigate life and work” of the person investigated.
Complex investigation
Different magistrates of the Provincial Court of Madrid consulted by this newspaper They exclude that their colleagues from Section 23 will miss their shot to the investigation opened against Begoña Gómez.
“When the procedure is at an emerging stage and we have first seen elements to investigate, as is the case, it is not usual for us to decree the archives,” these sources agree.
The resolution issued in May by Section 23 would support the thesis that it is necessary to continue the investigation. At the time, the same magistrates who will rule have now reprimanded the prosecutor for his “attempt to prevent any investigation” in the “delicate area” of influence peddling crimes.
In this sense, they indicated that not investigating existing evidence “could lead to creating the flaws of impunity in any criminal activity where the delineation of relevant criminal behavior is not always easy to establish and where obtaining sources of evidence is complex.
The sources consulted consider that, although it is an extra-procedural factor, the attacks directed against the instructor – particularly those emanating from the PSOE and members of the Government themselves – generate a feeling of solidarity with him. consideration and “reduce the possibility of a hit.”, they assert.
They emphasize, in this regard, that in large sectors of the Provincial Court, the government’s reaction to the investigation into the president’s wife is considered “disproportionate”, to the point that the latter filed a complaint against Peinado.
In this sense, they consider that a disavowal of the instructor in the resolution of the appeals would leave the instructor “at the horses’ feet” in the face of this complaint, the admission of which or not for treatment is pending in the Superior Court of Justice. from Madrid.
The purpose of the instruction
Another thing, they add, is that the article requires Peinado to make a more precise determination of the subject of the procedure and timely notification of new facts incorporated in the procedure.
This is the meaning of the appeal of the prosecutor, who complained before the Court that the object of the investigation “is to prove generic and lacking specificity“, Thus “This may seem like a general cause.”.
“There is no judicial decision which guides or specifies the procedure,” indicates the appeal from the public prosecutor.
“There is an attempt to expand teaching to very broad moments and scenarios, the relationship of which to the intended goal we do not fully understand,” he says.
This is why it asks article 23 of the Provincial Court of Madrid to “delimit the cause”; exclude “the facts relating to Globalia”, in which there is no evidence of criminality, and “determine” which facts the judge can continue to investigate and which cannot.
In the context of these complaints, it is significant that the Court wanted to examine all of the procedures handled by Peinado. The elevation of procedural integrity to the Section was a request of the defense in its appeal. The magistrates requested it on the 12th.
