Judge Peinado closes the investigation against Begoña Gómez and leaves her one step away from trial

MadridTwo years after the investigation was launched that caused Pedro Sánchez's famous five days of reflection, Judge Juan Carlos Peinado has decided to close the famous five days of reflection of Pedro Sánchez, Judge Juan Carlos Peinado has decided to close the investigation into Begoña Gómez and leaves her one step away from trial for four crimes. She is accused of influence peddling, embezzlement, business corruption, and misappropriation. He believes that her condition as the Spanish president's wife served "to influence" and allowed her "to access institutionally exceptional interlocutions." "In return, Begoña Gómez offered the competitive advantage of the aforementioned companies, in privileged or close dealings with the public administration, taking advantage of the fact that her husband is the president of the government of Spain," concludes the magistrate. Of course, at the last minute, the magistrate dismisses the crime of labor intrusion. Likewise, he takes the same step for her advisor at Moncloa, Cristina Álvarez, and for the businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés.

The popular prosecutions, led by Hazte Oír, now have five days to request the opening of oral proceedings and formulate their indictment, which must contain the number of years of prison they are requesting. The Prosecutor's Office has long been asking for the case to be dismissed. In the event that it goes to trial – as is foreseeable – Begoña Gómez will be tried by a popular jury. Shortly after the news broke, the Spanish government's reaction came from Minister Félix Bolaños, who harshly criticized the judge, accusing him of doing "irreparable damage" to Spanish justice: "This investigation has shamed many citizens of the country, as well as judges and magistrates."

Throughout the 39-page interlocutory, Juan Carlos Peinado makes sixteen allusions to Pedro Sánchez as the Spanish Prime Minister. He points out that the companies she was involved with participated in "numerous public tender procedures" and maintains that the contacts she had "were aimed at obtaining future undue private or commercial benefits". In other words, the sponsorship of the chair was the "facade" of an "unveiled retribution for future benefits" related to the fact that Pedro Sánchez is her husband. "These are not isolated, accessory, or purely protocolary contacts, but rather a continuous, direct, and operational action," he adds. In relation to the alleged crime of influence peddling, Juan Carlos Peinado says that since Pedro Sánchez was elected Spanish Prime Minister, "certain public decisions favorable" to the chair co-directed by Begoña Gómez at the Complutense University of Madrid were taken: "It could have been obtained through a singular exploitation of her relational position".

The hiring of your advisor

The crime of embezzlement is related to the hiring of her advisor at Moncloa, who helped her with tasks related to the chair. The judge acknowledges that Begoña Gómez cannot be considered the "direct perpetrator" of the alleged crime because she did not pay her salary, but believes she was "an instigator, necessary cooperator, and conscious beneficiary" of the "misappropriation" of public money because she "steadily took advantage of her dedication to tasks unrelated to her institutional assignment," such as liaising with universities and sponsors, monitoring the chair, and attending meetings. Therefore, he states that Begoña Gómez used "workforce and institutional coverage funded by the State" for her "private and professional purposes" and maintains that, given the "continuity, reiteration, and exploitation" of this aid, it cannot be framed as "mere isolated favors or episodic occurrences."

Regarding fundraising, Juan Carlos Peinado believes that Begoña Gómez sought funds for the chair "ostensibly," but that – in reality – they were to "integrate them into her personal assets." Finally, the judge has closed the case on the crime of labor intrusion, which was linked to the signing of a technical specifications document for software for the chair. As it has been proven that a "specific title" was not required to do so and there are no "multiple and solid indications," the judge has decided to set it aside.