An unexpected legal resource
The legal representation of Begoña Gómez has presented an appeal against the summons of her husband, Pedro Sánchez, current president of the Government of Spain, as a witness in the legal process that has been initiated against her for alleged crimes related to influence peddling and corruption. in business. Through a document that covers eight pages, Antonio Camacho, Gómez’s lawyer and former minister of the Socialist Party, argues that ‘there is no evidence to support the summons made, leaving aside the free decision of the investigating judge to proceed with the requested statement.’
An application that could be reviewed
Furthermore, the lawyer suggests that, if the judge maintains his position of summoning Sánchez, he should give him the opportunity to do so in writing, as stipulated by current regulations. This lawyer emphasizes that of the three articles of the Criminal Procedure Law that the magistrate mentions in his summons resolution, two are not contemplated in the regulations.
The position of the Madrid Prosecutor’s Office
The Madrid Prosecutor’s Office has also decided to appeal the summons of Pedro Sánchez, arguing that said diligence is not ‘necessary, useful or pertinent’. According to the Public Ministry, this subpoena is not essential for the purposes of the investigation currently underway. Therefore, they ask the judge to reconsider his decision or, failing that, to allow the President of the Government to declare in writing, an option that is contemplated within the Criminal Procedure Law if the declaration is related to matters of responsibility. of the.
Inconsistencies in the law
Regarding the non-existent articles in the law, the defense of Sánchez’s wife emphasizes that ‘it is evident, from a strictly legal perspective, that it is surprising to address a resolution that cites three articles, of which two are not present in our Law of Criminal Procedure. In fact, there is neither point 2.12 of Article 412, nor the alleged Article 413, paragraph 12. For this reason, the surprising term that the lawyer has used at the beginning of this section is completely justified.
The contradictions of Judge Juan Carlos Peinado
Likewise, Begoña Gómez’s lawyer points out that Judge Juan Carlos Peinado incurs contradictions within his argument, since, when justifying that the interrogation will take place in the Moncloa, the magistrate argued that he would question facts about which he had no knowledge. knowledge due to his role as president of the Spanish Government. However, in a previous resolution, the same judge had already mentioned that ‘all the acts, conduct and behavior that the person under investigation (Begoña Gómez) has carried out since her husband occupied the presidency of the Spanish Government are being investigated.’ .
Investigations into influence peddling
In Monday’s ruling, the judge also indicated his intention to investigate a possible crime of ‘chain influence peddling’ and the ‘possible relationship of the person investigated with an authority.’ Furthermore, he mentions that citing Pedro Sánchez to clarify his relationship with the person under investigation ‘is a known and public fact that both have maintained a marital bond for many years.’ The only clue that the judge could have would be the statement of Juan Carlos Barrabés, the main witness in the case, who claimed to have met with Sánchez on two occasions in Moncloa.
The intimacy of the Moncloa Palace
One of these meetings took place in the context of a meeting with businessmen from the innovation sector and the other was brief, since Sánchez received a call during a meeting he had with Gómez. In this context, Gómez’s lawyer concludes that the Moncloa Palace is the couple’s residence and it is unlikely that the President of the Government has not had any interaction with his wife during his term.