The National Court rules out for now charging the PSOE for the Leire case, just as the PP requested
Judge Pedraz assures that "for the moment" there is not enough evidence to define the Socialist Party as under investigation
The request from the Popular Party, which asked to charge the PSOE in the Leire Díez case, has not been successful. The judge leading the case at the National Court, Santiago Pedraz, has rejected, for now, that the socialist party be considered an investigated legal entity, as some proceedings still need to be carried out within the framework of the case.
However, the interlocutory order points out that this decision is the one reached "for the moment," meaning that it does not rule out charging the PSOE later on within the investigation into the alleged organization established to destabilize the judicial cases affecting the PSOE and the Spanish government.
According to a statement from the National Court, the magistrate bases his decision on the Supreme Court's doctrine regarding the criminal liability of legal entities and the requirements demanded for their indictment, and explains that for now, he does not verify what is called "prima facie evidence" to attribute the status of investigated party to it. Some of the missing proceedings are the analysis of the documentation seized at Ferraz and the statement from the party's former organization secretary, Santos Cerdán. Once these are done, Pedraz will decide again whether or not to charge the socialist party.
What would be needed to charge the PSOE?
The National Court explains that it is not enough for PSOE executives or employees to have committed a crime, but that it is necessary to prove a structural defect in the organization, control, and supervision of the entity, and that there must be a direct or indirect benefit for the organization. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate "a possible and initial attribution of criminal responsibility to the party" for the alleged crimes of Leire Díez and Santos Cerdán. Specifically, what real powers Cerdán had, who executed the payments under investigation, what internal controls were in place, whether there were relevant errors in the supervision mechanisms, and, obviously, whether the party obtained any benefit from it.