Perhaps it would be simpler and quicker to formulate this letter in another way. Is there anything normal in the investigation by Judge Juan Carlos Peinado against Begoña Gómez, the wife of the Prime Minister? Is there anything foreseeable in this criminal investigation? Something that happens on a daily basis in any other Spanish court?
The answer is very short. No, there is nothing that is very normal. Neither the deadlines, nor the forms, nor the procedures.
But let’s get into the details, there are many complex things to explain.
1. The hoax complaint from Clean Hands.
The news is moving so fast that you may not remember it. It all started in April, with a complaint filed by the pseudo-union Manos Limpias. Juan Carlos Peinado accepted it for processing, without first asking the Public Prosecutor’s Office, despite the fact that it only included eight press clippings and a hoax that confused the president’s wife with another Begoña Gómez who had asked for a subsidy.
Here is the first major anomaly of this investigation, which should never have started. Because the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence states very clearly that complaints or lawsuits that consist of “the mere provision of press clippings or similar without further verification or accreditation” cannot be accepted for processing. A criterion that Judge Peinado did not care about at all.
2. The triumphant return of Miguel Bernard
The whistleblower and leader of Manos Limpias, Miguel Bernard, is a long-standing member of the Spanish far right: in the 1980s he was Blas Piñar’s number two in the Frente Nacional party. Bernard filed this complaint against Begoña Gómez shortly after being saved by the Supreme Court from his own personal criminal ordeal.
In 2021, the National Court sentenced Miguel Bernard and the president of Ausbanc, Luis Pineda, to prison for the crimes of fraud and extortion. According to the sentence, the modus operandi of these two organizations consisted of initiating legal proceedings against large corporations that were later withdrawn or mitigated if the accused companies paid. And if they didn’t? Well, the monkey’s back.
Despite these proven facts, which the Supreme Court accepted as valid, the Criminal Chamber acquitted them in March 2024, a sentence that is now final. Their argument is that the complaints were based on true data and that this extortion was not such because these large companies were part of the Ibex and had many tools at their disposal to defend themselves in court.
In short: for the Supreme Court there is no crime of extortion if you can defend yourself from the bully.
Just two weeks after being acquitted, Miguel Bernard filed the complaint against Begoña Gómez that we are talking about today.
3. The relatively secret cause
Judge Peinado, with this complaint from Manos Limpias, started a judicial investigation and declared the case secret. He then informed the press office of the High Court of Justice of Madrid that this “secret” investigation had been started, so that they could inform the media. The news was published by land, sea and air.
Normally, judicial investigations under secrecy are not reported to the press. The reason is obvious. The usefulness of secrecy is that those under investigation do not know that they are under the scrutiny of justice and thus more evidence can be gathered against them.
Second oddity of Judge Peinado’s open secret. After his first proceedings, Judge Peinado took the “secret” in an asymmetrical way. He provided a good part of the documentation of the case to one of the accusations, Vox, but not to Begoña Gómez’s lawyer. It is something quite irregular. The journalist Max Pradera has filed a complaint for disclosure of secrets on which the High Court of Justice of Madrid has not yet ruled.
4. And what is being investigated here?
The Manos Limpias complaint accused Begoña Gómez of three things. First, of having facilitated the rescue of the airline Air Europa in exchange for sponsorship for a center of the Instituto Empresa that she co-directed. The first headlines about this spoke of 40,000 euros. The reality is that this money –which was intended for a scholarship program– was never paid. Only two plane tickets were spent.
The link between this sponsorship and the rescue of Air Europa was also very well held together. The agreement for this sponsorship was prior to the pandemic. It was cancelled precisely because of the outbreak of the coronavirus, which was also what motivated the rescue of Air Europa (and all EU airlines).
The second accusation from Manos Limpias had to do with a public tender won by a company owned by Carlos Barrabés, a well-known entrepreneur in the Internet sector. Begoña Gómez signed a declaration of interest that Barrabés submitted in that tender, where she confirmed that the master’s degree she directs was going to collaborate with the training programme Barrabés was applying for. It was a standard letter: identical to the one signed by 32 other people. Among others, the director of the Employment Agency of the Madrid City Council.
And the third question? Well, that hoax about a subsidy for another Begoña Gómez: a businesswoman from Cantabria who has the same name as the wife of the President of the Government and who was not even given any subsidy. She just asked for it.
5. The Civil Guard does not see crimes
Judge Peinado asked the UCO, the Central Operative Unit of the Civil Guard, to investigate the complaint by Manos Limpias. The UCO produced an extensive report of almost 120 pages. Its response is forceful: there is no evidence of any crime. Neither in the sponsorship of Air Europa that was not paid, nor in the declaration of interest in favour of Barrabés, a document that had no influence on the award.
Despite the setback, Judge Peinado insisted. And he asked the Civil Guard for a second report on the emails and specifications of the contracts won by Barrabés’ companies. Again, there is no evidence of a crime. For the Civil Guard, there is still no evidence of a crime.
6. A general cause
Meanwhile, two other things happened. First, the Madrid Court told the judge that it saw no evidence in the Air Europa case and that he should focus on the Barrabés case; in passing, it questioned his decision to keep the case secret without justification. Second, the European Prosecutor’s Office requested the Barrabés case, since it involved European funds.
The expected thing in this case was that the investigation would be closed. Basically, because Peinado had run out of topics to investigate. But this did not stop him either. Not only has he continued investigating both topics (the Air Europa case, the Barrabés case) without new clues, but he has also opened a new front, which did not appear in the complaint: Begoña Gómez’s relationship with the Complutense University.
In a ruling on July 1, Judge Peinado explained exactly what he is investigating. And the phrase is peculiar.
“The facts under investigation are All the acts, conduct and behaviors that have been carried out by the person under investigation since her husband became President of the Government of Spain contained in the initial complaint, excluding the facts relating to the contracts awarded to the Joint Venture formed by the companies Innova Next and The Valley Business School, by the public entity Red.es, financed with European funds and whose knowledge was brought to the attention of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.”
In short: Judge Peinado is investigating EVERYTHING that Begoña Gómez may have done since Sánchez became president. It is hard to find a clearer example of prospective investigation, to see what he can find.
7. From witnesses to investigated
He has done it twice already. First with Carlos Barrabés: Judge Peinado called him to testify as a witness. And days later he charged him. Then with the rector of the Complutense: he called him as a witness again and later informed him that he was also charged.
This is not normal. Before a court, a witness has fewer rights than a defendant or person under investigation: he is there to help clarify the facts, not because he is suspected of anything. To begin with, a witness has the obligation to tell the truth – defendants do not. And the witness cannot be assisted by a lawyer during his statement either. Calling a person to testify as a witness in order to then charge him is something very unusual in courts: because it entails a reduction in his rights.
There is another very relevant issue here, the specific case of Carlos Barrabés. The judge has based his indictment on the data contained in the reports of the Civil Guard. But the judge already had those reports days before calling him as a witness. If those alleged indications against him appeared there, why did he not indict him from the outset?
8. Let Sánchez’s husband testify, but not as president
First Barrabés. Then the rector. And the next “witness” who can already imagine where the judge is going is the president of the Government, Pedro Sánchez.
His summons as a witness is extravagant. And not only because Judge Peinado invented two articles of the criminal procedure law.
First, the deadlines. I don’t know of many courts that operate this quickly: where witnesses are summoned from one week to the next or, in some cases, on a Sunday.
Second, because of what the judge is asking for. The Prime Minister, in any matter related to the office he holds, has the right to respond as a witness in writing before a court. But the judge wants the statement to be in person and recorded on video. In fact, in his ruling he devotes more paragraphs to explaining how the video should be recorded – a recording that will surely later be leaked to the media – than to explaining why he is asking him to testify.
The argument to justify her failure to respond in writing is that these are facts that “have nothing to do with the position she holds.” But how can this fit in with Peinado’s own explanation, when she assured that she is investigating “all the actions” of Begoña Gómez “since her husband became President of the Government”?
There is another issue. The immediate family members of a person under investigation have the right not to testify as witnesses. In other words, not only does Sánchez not have the obligation to testify, but the judge knows perfectly well that it is unlikely that he will do so, just as his wife did.
Despite everything, Peinado has decided to launch a circus in La Moncloa whose sole objective is obvious, just like when he decided to charge Begoña Gómez in the middle of the election campaign.
Because all the anomalies and botched jobs in this judicial investigation always go in the same direction. They can only be understood from a political perspective. They can only be explained in this way.
I find it hard to believe that the Madrid Court can support such a criminal investigation. But with its decision to postpone the response to all appeals until September 30, it has already made its move. They are going to let Judge Peinado’s circus continue a little longer.
I’ll leave it here for today. And I’ll say goodbye for a few weeks: this is my last newsletter before the holidays. I’ll be back at the end of August, I need to rest. I hope you have a good summer too.
A hug,
Ignacio Escolar
————
If you are a member of elDiario.esthank you for your help: it is essential for us to be able to resist too. And if you are not, please support us: become a member, become a member, of elDiario.es.
Source: www.eldiario.es
