Isabel Díaz Ayuso took 30 hours to respond to the exclusive published at six in the morning on March 12 by elDiario.es about the Prosecutor's complaint against her boyfriend, Alberto González Amador, for two tax crimes punishable by sentences of 2 to 10 years in prison. Ayuso's responses and those of his chief of staff, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, are events that happened on March 13 and that neither the UCO reports nor the investigating judge, Ángel Hurtado, took into account when analyzing what happened afterwards.
The president of the Community of Madrid appeared at noon on March 13 before the press in Leganés after meeting her Government Council and spoke about her partner's fiscal problems. “As far as I know, my partner is suffering a savage tax inspection that affects 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 and now they want it to be 2022 to delay the almost 600,000 euros that the Treasury owes him (…) It is false that he is the one who owes the Treasury 300,000 euros for fraud and not only does he not owe him anything but it is the Treasury that owes him almost 600,000 euros to pay… for interest.”
When the journalists tried to clarify the diffuse explanations of the couple of the alleged tax fraudster, his Chief of Staff, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, came into play, who for the next 11 hours spread lies among the media to falsely accuse the Prosecutor's Office of mounting an operation against a political rival of the Government.
Isabel Díaz Ayuso began her attacks that day in defense of her boyfriend with the phrase “from what I know.” He had to be informed by his partner, the main source of any information about the problem with the Treasury that could lead him to jail. At that time, Alberto González Amador was involved in a desperate attempt to avoid a trial in which he would face a request for between two and 10 years in prison for defrauding 350,000 euros in his 2020 and 2021 Corporate Tax returns.
Ayuso's boyfriend had submitted a corporate tax return to the Tax Agency in July 2023, the result of which was to pay more than 600,000 euros to the Treasury. With that statement, which included income that he did not have that year, he attempts to repair the damage caused in the two previous years by his fraudulent statements with 15 false invoices. But the Law prevents this type of fix when the taxpayer is subject to an inspection.
What Ayuso told journalists at that time, 30 hours after elDiario.es had reported on the case, was a false version of what was actually happening. In fact, in January 2024, two months before the Madrid president's statement, her partner already knew that the Treasury did not accept that payment to repair the damage caused by the two fraudulent statements, that it would return the money overpaid and that it would continue with the request for liability for a double tax crime. The Treasury ended up returning 552,000 euros in April 2024 to González Amador, but the Prosecutor's complaint for fraud continued its way through the courts.
There was also no wild tax inspection against González Amador, as Ayuso publicly denounced. The Tax Agency opened the file because the anonymous taxpayer González Amador, owner of the Maxwell Cremona company, did something that activated the logical alarms of the tax inspection as would have happened with any other private citizen.
The taxpayer González Amador went from billing his company 357,000 euros in 2019 to 2,330,000 euros in 2020 (this year he earned two million euros for rapid intermediation in the sale of masks in the worst of the pandemic). This increase in income (six times more than a year before) was accompanied by a suspicious decrease in tax payments (the tax base in 2019 was 27,498 euros and in 2020, only 11,233 euros, less than half). It took very little for the tax inspection to discover the trap: González Amador had deducted expenses of 620,000 euros for the payment of commissions to a Mexican company that never occurred. Even Ayuso's boyfriend admitted it much later when the Tax Agency managed to accredit him.
Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, his boss's faithful squire, confirmed to journalists with new lies the story of Isabel Díaz Ayuso that March 13, 2024 in defense of the alleged fraudster. “There is no false invoice, no plot, no front company. It is not true that the Treasury asks him for that. He has already paid it (…) He paid a fine for a first file before the Treasury elevated it to the Prosecutor's Office. They opened another one for him, but he could not pay it because they did not let him and that is why he is in the Prosecutor's Office. A whole corrupt plot by the Treasury and Prosecutor's Office to reach this mess in which there is no false invoice, no plot, no company screen”.
Misrepresentation and invention of events
The facts crushed that succession of lies. González Amador never paid any fine in any file. He made two fraudulent declarations and when the inspection caught him in his deceptions, he tried to rectify them with a type of complementary declaration that his own tax advisor advised against as illegal. In the two fraudulent tax returns there were up to 15 false invoices for 1.7 million euros that González Amador used to deduct non-existent expenses with the sole objective of paying less taxes. There was a plot in which businessmen participated, many of them Andalusian, owners of the companies that falsely invoiced González Amador. The Treasury had taken him to court for two settlements linked to crime after almost two years of investigation to prove the fraud.
Both Ayuso and Rodríguez distributed information from González Amador's tax files that day but distorted or invented the facts to fabricate a conspiracy by the Prosecutor's Office and the Tax Agency against the Government's political adversaries.
Rodríguez's hoaxes grew in intensity against the Prosecutor's Office that afternoon of March 13. At seven in the afternoon, according to the communications he maintained with journalists from El País and that were incorporated into the case summary, Ayuso's chief of staff reported that the prosecutor in the case had been prohibited from negotiating an alleged agreement with González Amador. “Everything murky and ugly,” Rodríguez said. He could only disseminate that information if he knew that González Amador and the prosecutor in the case were negotiating an agreement, which always involves the recognition of the crime by the taxpayer accused of fraud. “The prosecutor offered him to negotiate; later, the prosecutor was prohibited from negotiating with him,” Rodríguez explained without providing any proof of that circumstance. That lie was transferred to a headline in El Mundo (at 9:25 p.m. on March 13), which assumed Rodríguez's version without contrasting it: “The Prosecutor's Office offers Ayuso's partner an agreement to admit two tax crimes.” The Madrid president's chief of staff confessed in the Supreme Court that he had put El Mundo journalists in contact with González Amador.
To support this false version of the events, which at that time the Prosecutor's Office was already denying without giving more details, Rodríguez provided many journalists with the text of an email that the prosecutor in the case had sent to González Amador's lawyer a few hours after elDiario.es uncovered the case: “I am attaching a copy of the complaint filed on March 5, 2024 against the Maxwell Cremona company to facilitate the right of defense. I suppose that for two months we will not have the court in charge of the matter. Although other people have also been denounced, it will not be an obstacle to reaching an agreement if you and your client consider it possible.”
The email did not say anything about the admission of the crimes, something that González Amador had done through his lawyer a month before through an email where he proposed a pact to avoid jail by paying a fine and admitting the fraud committed in two consecutive fiscal years. Rodríguez assured the Supreme Court that he had put the newspaper El Mundo in contact with González Amador.
Ayuso's chief of staff concluded his day of informative intoxication to certain journalists with a new hoax: “It is the Prosecutor's Office that offers the agreement, in principle. Afterwards, it receives orders “from above” and withdraws the agreement proposal… all dirty.” When a journalist asked Rodríguez what evidence he had of what he was denouncing, the chief of staff replied that the prosecutor withdrew the agreement proposal “orally.”
The prosecutor in the case, Julián Salto, denied in the Supreme Court that he had withdrawn the agreement proposal. Furthermore, the events of the following months proved that the Prosecutor's Office reached the first judicial procedure with the intention of sealing an agreement in accordance with González Amador's defense to avoid his entry into prison.
The Prosecutor's Denial
That night of the hoaxes, the State Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, informed by the chief prosecutor of the Community of Madrid, Almudena Lastra, agreed to deny the false version of Ayuso and Rodríguez through a note, distributed on the morning of March 14, in which he reported on the judicial procedure against González Amador and detailed how the alleged fraudster had offered on February 2 by email through his lawyer admit the two tax crimes to close an agreement with the Prosecutor's Office by paying a fine and thus avoid jail.
The Supreme Court agreed to investigate whether, before that note, the attorney general leaked the February 2 email to certain journalists, thus allegedly violating due confidentiality. Neither the investigating judge Ángel Hurtado, nor the UCO, who reported on the events, gave importance to the hoax factory that Ayuso and Rodríguez – with distorted information about supposedly confidential emails – launched to defend the alleged tax offender on March 13, 2024. Nine months later, the Madrid president's chief of staff and defender of the alleged fraudster, confessed in the Supreme Court. his lies against the state attorney general. Apparently, these lies are of no interest to this cause.