The Madrid Court upholds that the case against Begoña Gómez proceeds for embezzlement and jury trial

MadridRelevant decision by the Provincial Court of Madrid regarding the case affecting Begoña Gómez. For weeks, the Spanish government had been awaiting its pronouncement to rein in the investigating judge, Juan Carlos Peinado, and finally, the decision arrived this Thursday. What has the chamber decided? The five magistrates order the withdrawal of precautionary measures and the return of her passport – they consider there is no "real" risk of flight because she has family ties and it was an "unfortunate" decision – but they endorse that a popular jury judge her.

The case against Pedro Sánchez's wife has two aspects, one for the crime of influence peddling, linked to the creation of the chair she co-directed at the Complutense University (UCM) and the “intermediation” in favor of businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés, and the other for embezzlement, in relation to the “destination” of the chair's software and the use of her advisor at Moncloa for “private purposes”. On the other hand, it closes the book on business corruption and misappropriation.

Therefore, the Court of Madrid, which began deliberations on Monday, has determined that the case against the Spanish president's wife should be maintained, but has qualified some aspects of Peinado's investigation. Now the popular prosecutions, led by Hazte Oír, will have to formulate a new request for a conviction.

The order, of 63 pages, considers that the decision for Begoña Gómez to sit before a popular jury – made up of nine randomly selected Madrilenian citizens – is “neither arbitrary nor contrary to law” because the judge “identifies the crimes” and provides a “reasonable and understandable” foundation for this path. Five months agohe was reprimanded for not arguing it enough and was forced to issue a new resolution supporting it better. And now it has passed the filter. In addition to Begoña Gómez, the trial against Cristina Álvarez, the president's wife's advisor at Moncloa, also proceeds for a crime of embezzlement, limited to the “diversion” of the chair's software. According to her lawyer, it is a “loose end” that “will amount to nothing”. On the other hand, it exonerates Juan Carlos Barrabés from the main piece and refers to the separate investigation that was opened a few days ago regarding the legality or illegality of public contract awards.

La Moncloa has not taken long to react. Sources from the Spanish government maintain Begoña Gómez's innocence despite this ruling: "It is a political cause," they denounce. "It has its origin in a false complaint, based on fake news, and its sole motivation is the harassment and persecution of the president's wife," they sentence. On the other hand, the PP has rushed to rub salt in the wound. Sources from Alberto Núñez Feijóo's party emphasize that in the same week that Sánchez's brother has been convicted it is confirmed that his wife will sit on the defendant's bench: "It has no precedent in democracy, it cannot be normalized".

The court's arguments

Influence peddling

The Madrid Court of Appeal upholds one of the main pillars of Juan Carlos Peinado's investigation, linked to an alleged influence peddling arising from the creation of the chair: “It is perfectly plausible to argue that she achieved the influence deployed from her privileged position as wife of the Spanish Prime Minister to obtain the concession of the chair almost immediately and without verifying minimal control over the consistency of the project,” it states. And it points to “sufficient moral pressure” to “move the will of the academic authority” of the Complutense. “The mere relationship by marriage to the highest authority of the nation's government can entail effective moral pressure,” it adds. From Moncloa they are emphatic in their response and recall that Gómez has collaborated with the university since 2012, before Sánchez became president: "There is no evidence of calls, pressures or dealings to influence the awards," they say, in addition to assuring that Barrabés was already in contact with the administration before meeting Begoña Gómez.

After her defense alleged that she did not receive a single euro from the chair – something that Moncloa also reaffirms now – the five judges are clear that the “benefit” she obtained translated into “personal or reputational prestige for her academic career” and “access to multiple resources and events.” In short, it was an “institutional umbrella” that allowed her to “obtain funding.” She assures that this “shot up” her income, but admits that the figures were “very moderate,” with a total amount of 31,000 euros.

Misappropriation of funds

The ruling also supports suspicions about the alleged misuse of software by Begoña Gómez to measure companies' compliance with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that had been created within the framework of the chair. To do this, she raised private funding from technology companies and the university directly invested 109,000 euros in it. Afterwards, Pedro Sánchez's wife allegedly tried to appropriate this software to obtain a “pecuniary benefit.” All this she allegedly did with the “necessary collaboration” of Cristina Álvarez, whom the Provincial Court also supports trying for embezzlement. “It was essential for Begoña Gómez, exerting influence, acting on her behalf to obtain funding [...] and carrying out the necessary steps to divert the assets of the Complutense towards private purposes,” it summarizes.

What does Moncloa say about this? Sources from the Spanish government deny the main point. They say the software was a "URL of a webpage that was never finished," that it was not commercially exploited, and that it was intended to be a free service for companies and NGOs. "There was no economic benefit for any of the investigated parties and the UCM suffered no pecuniary damage," they conclude. Furthermore, they recall that the Prosecutor's Office sees no crime and requests acquittal.

No corruption in business

The Madrid Court also dismisses, in addition to misappropriation, the crime of corruption in business, which is one of the two with which the case was opened more than two years ago. It argues that it is a crime that does not fit the facts on the table: it considers that it cannot be concluded that the companies that sponsored the chair gave “specific advantages” or “unjustified remuneration” to Begoña Gómez, nor can it be maintained that there was an “illegal capture” of funds to generate a “position of privilege”.