Judge Juan Carlos Peinado has agreed to consolidate the entire case he is leading against the wife of the President of the Government, Begoña Gómez, in one piece, as ordered on October 3 by the Provincial Court of Madrid after agreeing with the defense. This is stated in the order that the head of the Investigative Court Number 41 of Madrid has issued a ruling to unite the main piece – in which he investigates alleged crimes of influence peddling, corruption in business, misappropriation of trademarks and intrusion – and the separate piece – relating to alleged crimes of embezzlement of public funds.
The resolution by which Peinado accumulates the entire 'Begoña Gómez case' in a single piece comes after the instructor informed all those investigated —Gómez, his advisor in Moncloa, Cristina Álvarez; the Government delegate in Madrid, Francisco Martín Aguirre; and the businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés—that, if the case goes to trial, they will be judged by a popular jury, that is, by citizens and not by a court made up of judges.
It should be remembered that the judge opened the case in April 2024 following a complaint filed by the ultra pseudo-union Clean Hands in which Gómez was accused of having used her status as the wife of the President of the Government to recommend businessmen, such as the investigated Juan Carlos Barrabés, who participated in public tenders.
Due to these events, the instructor charged Gómez with alleged crimes of business corruption and influence peddling. It is for this last crime that the judge understands that the entire case must be tried by a popular jury, because it is included in the list of crimes that are the exclusive jurisdiction of the jury court and drags the rest to be tried under the same formula.
After opening the main piece, the judge opened new branches of investigation as a result of another complaint filed by Vox for alleged irregularities in the registration of the 'software' of a chair at the Complutense University of Madrid (UCM) that Gómez co-directed. At this point, the instructor charged Pedro Sánchez's wife with the alleged crimes of trademark misappropriation and intrusion.
Subsequently, Peinado opened the separate piece following another complaint from Vox to investigate whether there was a diversion of public money in the appointment of Cristina Álvarez as an advisor to Moncloa and whether she has performed private functions for Gómez within the framework of her work at the Complutense.
The Provincial Court of Madrid corrected Peinado's decision to open said separate room last March; However, he endorsed that the instructor continued with this line of research within the main piece.
Embezzlement and influence peddling, “intertwined”
The higher body indicated that the judge's decision to open said piece was “premature and unmotivated from a factual, regulatory and procedural point of view.” “Although it could be stated that it is a mere decision of procedural accommodation without major significance and legally imposed, upon verifying that the crime investigated corresponds to be processed in accordance with the Law of the Jury Court, however, the decision does have relevance given the complexity of the various facts investigated,” he noted.
The Madrid Court stressed that the resolution issued by Peinado did not contain “a minimum or succinct description of the facts that should make up the separate piece and the investigated parties concerned.” “It does not establish a minimum analysis of the indicative consistency and legal viability of the criminal accusation, nor does it include the reasons why the judge considers that separate prosecution with the rest of the conduct is feasible without jeopardizing the continence of the case,” he added.
Furthermore, the body explained that in this case the alleged influence peddling and the alleged embezzlement that Gómez and Álvarez would have committed are related, so it understood that what was pertinent was that both behaviors be investigated in the same main piece, without the need for a separate piece.
“Both behaviors are closely intertwined, while the habitual intervention of the person who was the director of Presidency of Government programs was supposedly used as another element of subjective influence in the crime of influence peddling,” he noted.
For this reason, he insisted that the fact that “the evidence of both alleged crimes is intrinsically linked” made it impossible to form separate pieces without the investigating judge having “provided divergent reasoning that could alter that decision.”