He Supreme Court issued a new ruling that strengthens its position that judges can investigate “different facts” those included in an initial complaint. This decision supports, among other cases, the judge’s instruction Juan Carlos Peinado inside Begoña Gómez casein which the investigation was broadened beyond the events reported by Clean hands in the initial complaint. In its judgment, the court emphasizes that the criminal procedure law (LECrim) allows the investigating judge to examine “facts other than those which gave rise to the opening of the procedure”. He emphasizes that “it is not acceptable” to demand that the facts investigated be “perfectly defined» since the beginning of the affair.
The Supreme Court explains that only when the facts are clarified during the investigation will it be possible and necessary for the accusation to be clearly stated, both factually and legally. He also adds that the investigation can be extended to new facts or temporary periods not initially envisaged.
In its resolution, whose speaker was the judge Eduardo de Porresthe Supreme Court recalls that in 2015 it declared that the crime news –knowledge of a possible crime– is “enough to trigger the judicial investigation.” Peinado took advantage of this idea to investigate Pedro Sánchez’s wife.
However, he specifies that the investigation must be delimited and that no criminal proceedings should be initiated to investigate a person, a professional or business field, or a social phenomenon in general. However, this does not limit the investigation to the facts described in the complaint or in the crime news initial.
Fraud in Malaga
The Plenary Assembly of the Criminal Court delivered its opinion after analyzing the case of two men sentenced in Malaga for five offenses against the Public Treasury related to personal income tax and corporate tax. Both appealed, arguing that their convictions were based on “zero evidence” obtained by the tax administration and the prosecutor’s office through methods which, according to them, violated their fundamental rights, because it was a prospective investigation carried out “without judicial control or authorization” and based on “mere suspicion and not criminal evidence.
The court concludes that the Tax Agency acted within the scope of its legal investigative functions and that the investigations “They were not forward-looking, since they arise from previous complaints with data that allows us to assume a serious tax offense. Likewise, he supports the actions of the Prosecutor’s Office by not finding a violation of fundamental rights justifying the nullity of its actions.
In any event, the court declares some invalid procedures for having been made out of timealthough it states that “evidence from these proceedings may be presented at trial.” Thus, it partially estimates the resources and cancels these actions.
Finally, two magistrates issued a private vote in which they disagree with the majority, believing that the canceled procedure should be valid, since, according to their calculations, it was not carried out out of time. That being said, Peinado has even more freedom to continue his investigations into Begoña Gómez.
