More than 9,000 folios gathered in 19 volumes and a separate piece, four investigated and more than thirty interrogated witnesses, including the president of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, his Minister of Justice, Félix Bolaños, and several presidents of companies of the IBEX. They are the great figures of the case that Judge Juan Carlos Peinado has been still a year and a half against Begoña Gómez, which on Wednesday communicated that if he finally sits on the bench for the crime of embezzlement attributed to him for the tasks that his assistant performed will be a “popular” jury who determines whether or not he is guilty.
Precisely to communicate this decision, the judge has summoned it next Saturday afternoon in his court with the advisor Cristina Álvarez and the current Government delegate in Madrid, Francisco Martín, who was the head of the assistant in La Moncloa when he sent the three emails to companies that collaborated with the president's wife who support the imputation for this crime. It will be the fifth time that Begoña Gómez has to attend the headquarters of the courts of the Plaza de Castilla de Madrid, where it is common for groups of exalted linked to some of the ultras associations that exercise the accusation. On the last occasion, only two weeks ago, the police cordoned off the area and encapsulated the protesters on the adjacent sidewalk.
In the causes judged by popular jury are nine citizens on foot, chosen by raffle, those in charge of deciding whether to believe the accusations or the defenses. The law of the jury courtdating from 1995, delimits the crimes that can be prosecuted through this legal institution. Among them are those committed by public officials in the exercise of their positions, as is the case of the embezzlement he attributes to Begoña Gómez.
The decision to anticipate a possible trial with popular jury is the last milestone of a cause that the magistrate began after receiving a complaint from the pseudosindicato ultra clean hands supported by press information, some directly false. In one of his first cars, the judge made it clear that his claim was to investigate “all the acts, behaviors and behaviors that have been carried out by the investigated since her husband is president of the Government of Spain” contained in that complaint.
The Provincial Court, which is the upper instance that reviews the decisions of the instructional judges, as is the case of hairstyle, has given a partial guarantee to its inquiries, but has also corrected some of its excesses, such as when it ordered him to close several open lines of investigation, raise the imputation of two investigated or annul records. At the moment, and despite the political and media noise, in the various open ramifications there are no evidence of the five crimes pursued by the magistrate while the testimonies that discard their suspicions are crowded.
The magistrate also fit another sound upside down when the Supreme Court refused to prosecute the Minister of the Presidency, Félix Bolaños, in the branch of the case regarding the advisor of Begoña Gómez. The Judges of the High Court even accused him of “omitting” “relevant” information to try to involve the head of Justice, in an action investigated by the General Council of the Judiciary.
The Supreme Judges made it clear that Bolaños could not be accused of the mere fact of having had a position of responsibility at the time of the appointment of that worker. In their car they also insisted that embezzlement is a “malicious” crime. That is, that the author requires acting with conscious intention or will to commit a crime. And that working in the same place as the advisor with command position does not imply an “automatic and objective attribution” of the crime, as he intended to comb.
A clean hands complaint
The cause has been expanding after the complaint of clean hands accused Begoña Gómez of favoring Air Europa in his millionaire rescue during the pandemic for the relationship he established in the Institute of Business (IE) with the owners of Globalia, owner of the airline; and to benefit the businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés, a well -known entrepreneur of the Internet sector awarded public contracts.
The suspicions about Air Europa were quickly refuted by the UCO agents, who reflected in one of their reports that “there is no record” that the fact of Sánchez's wife coincided in two events with the company's old CEO, Javier Hidalgo, “could be linked to the ministerial decision of the rescue.” The Provincial Court has said up to three occasions that this matter must be out of the investigations due to lack of indications despite the judge's insistence to continue investigating an issue that the PP has become one of its main political weapons. The judge continued feeding press holders for months until the higher instance expressly prohibited him from continuing with that line of investigation.
After the setback with Air Europa, Hajinado also lost control over the second leg of the initial complaint, the one related to the alleged influence on Barrabés contracts, because the European Prosecutor's Office assumed that part of the investigations. According to clean hands, the entrepreneur and the UTE of which he participated were benefited in two public awards for the “letters of recommendation” he received from the president's wife. Actually, Begoña Gómez signed a statement of interest that Barrabés presented in that contest, where she proved that the master who was going to collaborate with the training program to which Barrabés opted. It was a type letter: identical to which 32 more people signed. Among others, the director of the Employment Agency of the Madrid City Council.
When the European Prosecutor's Office snatched that part of the investigation, Peinado chose to investigate whether Begoña Gómez could have had some kind of influence in the other public contracts with different administrations that a Barrabés company obtained for 21 million euros. At the moment, there has been no indication of the crime of influence peddling. The Provincial Court endorsed that part of the investigation, although it also rebuked hairstyle for registering the house and office of the businessman while in the hospital for a serious illness. The judges warned him that “the real truth cannot be obtained at any price” and annulled that record. At the time, the judge also tried to interrogate him during that income.
Retses of the Provincial Court
From there, the magistrate went on to seek irregularities in the professional activity of Begoña Gómez in La Complutense, where Barrabés was a collaborator in the courses she directed. And he did it supported by complaints and writings of the popular accusations linked to the extreme right. He first investigated if his hiring in 2020 to direct a chair was due to a new influences. He came to keep the rector, Joaquín Goyache, who always denied having given Gómez and has disconnected from the creation of the chair. The Provincial Court also forced him to get him out of the cause.
That line has resulted in a macro -investigation in which it investigates, on the one hand, if it incurred the crime of intrusion by signing a sheet in a tender of the university; and, on the other, if he committed undue appropriation for registering the logo of the website of the two masters taught in the Complutense and for which he charged 15,000 euros per year. Different University and IBEX managers who sponsored these studies have passed through the Court.
Among the lines of investigation to which the higher instance has ordered to give folder is also the hiring of Begoña Gómez by the Institute of Business (IE), where the court argues that there is no crime because it was the company itself that “wanted to have its services.” And, consequently, there are no indications of influence peddling. The Provincial Court forced him to archive the cause for the director of the IEE Juan José Güemes, who was advisor to the Community of Madrid with the PP, and which he accused after misrepresenting the testimony of a witness after he denied a favor treatment.
Change of criteria
On the other hand, the Provincial Court did endorse with nuances the line of investigation opened for a possible embezzlement in relation to the work of the Moncloa advisor who is responsible for managing the agenda and safety of the woman of the president of the Government. That is the route that the judge has explored to raise the cause to the Poncloa Palace. It was there that he tried unsuccessfully to involve Bolaños in a maneuver that stopped the Supreme Court.
However, the judges of the Provincial Court defended that it should be investigated whether the assistant exceeded the performance of their functions to “favor the criminal plan” of Begoña Gómez. However, they also affirmed that he could not be investigated for the crime of embezzlement that the judge ended up attributing to a decision that is already appealed that hairstyle has not expected to place it closer to the bench. Sánchez's wife also appealed her imputation for this crime.
In fact, the hairstyle himself had rejected in May involved by embezzlement to Begoña Gómez and the advisor when he decided to impute the Government delegate. The judge then acknowledged that there was no basis to attribute to Begoña Gómez any crime for the work of the advisor because there were no indications that he participated in his appointment and because he had limited himself to “making use of his professional services, although for personal purposes”. Regarding the advisor, Peinado said that “it is not enough to perceive to what extent” could embezzle public money “for developing the work that is entrusted to him and perceive the amount assigned.”
In his last resolution on Tuesday, Peinado acknowledges that at first he considered that he “did not proceed” to investigate Begoña Gómez and his assistant for that crime. But it does not explain its change in criteria and is limited to saying that judicial processes are subject to a process of “progressive crystallization.” That is, it is taking shape little by little. At the moment, the investigation that opened with a complaint based on press clippings is extended for a year and a half in which PP and Vox have used each movement of the judge as ammunition against the government.