The Madrid Court returns the passport to Begoña Gómez, but supports that a popular jury tries her for embezzlement
The Moncloa defends the innocence of the Spanish president's wife: "It's a political case"
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, but they endorse her being judged by a popular jury for the crimes of embezzlement and influence peddling. It does, however, close the door on the other two crimes for which Peinado sent her to trial: corruption in business and misappropriation of funds. Therefore, the Court of Madrid, which had been deliberating since last Monday due to the significance of the decision, has determined that the case against the Spanish President's wife should be maintained, but it has qualified some aspects of Peinado's investigation. Now the popular accusers, led by Hazte Oír, will have to formulate a new request for conviction.
The order, 63 pages long, considers that the decision for Begoña Gómez to appear before a popular jury – composed of nine randomly selected Madrilenian citizens – is not "either arbitrary or contrary to law" because the judge "identifies the crimes" and provides a "reasonable and understandable" justification for this route. Five months ago, he reprimanded him for not arguing it sufficiently and forced him to issue a new resolution with better support. And now it has passed the filter. In addition to Begoña Gómez, the trial against Cristina Álvarez, the advisor to the President's wife at Moncloa, also proceeds, solely for a crime of embezzlement and limited to the "diversion" of software from the chair. According to her lawyer, it is a "loose end" that "will come to nothing." On the other hand, Juan Carlos Barrabés is exonerated from the main piece and it is referred to the separate investigation that was opened a few days ago regarding the legality or not of public contract awards.
La Moncloa has not been slow to react. Sources from the Spanish government maintain Begoña Gómez's innocence despite this ruling: “It is a political cause,” they denounce. “It originates from a false accusation, 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.”
He returns his passport
Begoña Gómez will have been less than a month without a passport. Peinado withdrew it – among other reasons – because he did not trust the agents who act as her escort. Now the Madrid Court of Appeal says it was an “unfortunate wording”. Beyond that, it corrects the judge because it alleges that the risk of flight is neither “real” nor “effective” because she has “personal, family and professional ties” in Spain. Furthermore, there is “no data” to suggest an “attitude of evasion or resistance” to the action of justice. “It is not appreciated with sufficient clarity that the intensity of the measures adopted finds a proportionate justification,” it concludes.
The court's arguments
The Madrid Court of Appeals upholds one of the main pillars of Juan Carlos Peinado's investigation, linked to an alleged influence peddling following the creation of the chair that Begoña Gómez co-directed at the Complutense University of Madrid: “It is perfectly plausible to argue that she achieved the influence exerted from her privileged position as the wife of the President of the Spanish government to obtain the chair's concession almost immediately and without verifying a minimum control over the project's consistency,” it states. It points to “sufficient moral pressure” to “move the will of the academic authority” of the Complutense. “The mere relationship by marital ties with the highest authority of the nation's government can entail efficient moral pressure,” it adds.
Furthermore, after her defense alleged that she did not collect a single euro, 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 claims this “skyrocketed” her income, but admits the figures were “very modest,” with a total amount of 31,000 euros.
The order also upholds suspicions about the allegedly improper use of a 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 “pecuniary gain.” She allegedly did all this with the “necessary collaboration” of Cristina Álvarez. Peinado pointed to embezzlement here, but the Madrid Court of Appeals amends it and substitutes it with misappropriation.
It is the same crime that it links to Cristina Álvarez “exceeding” her duties as an advisor to the Spanish President's wife: “She was essential for Begoña Gómez, exerting influence, acting on her behalf to obtain funding [...] and carrying out the necessary arrangements to divert the Complutense's assets towards private ends,” it summarizes. However, it only holds Pedro Sánchez's wife responsible.
No corruption in business
The Madrid Provincial Court also dismisses 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 solicitation” of funds to generate a “position of privilege”.