Case Context
Magistrate Juan Carlos Peinado is in charge of reviewing a case that has Begoña Gómez, wife of the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, at its center. This matter is related to alleged criminal conduct in the area of corruption and influence peddling linked to Gómez’s business activity since her husband assumed the presidency of the country. It has been determined that on July 30, Pedro Sánchez will be summoned to provide his testimony.
The Nature of Influence Peddling
The investigations focus on what is described as ‘chain influence peddling’. This implies that an individual, taking advantage of his privileged position, can exert pressure on various authorities or officials, who in turn incite others to influence the decision of an official in charge of issuing a favorable ruling for the interested party or some other person. Judge Peinado argues that listening to ‘the husband of the person under investigation’ is extremely relevant and useful to clarify the case, considering that one of the infractions under evaluation is precisely influence peddling, which, according to doctrine and jurisprudence, includes this chained mode.
Inconsistencies in the Citation
However, an error has arisen in the summons to Pedro Sánchez, since Judge Juan Carlos Peinado refers to provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law that are not contemplated. He mentions articles that do not exist, specifically 412.3 point 2.12 and article 413, paragraph 12, but the latter only has two paragraphs, so the one mentioned cannot exist. The regulations indicate that, when a judge decides to take the statement of the President of the Government, among other relevant figures, he will do so at the predetermined official address or office, prior notification, specifying the time and date.
Reactions and Consequences
The decision to summon Pedro Sánchez has generated notable astonishment in various sectors, which will lead the Prosecutor’s Office to appeal this determination of the judge. This is an unprecedented event, given that he is the third Spanish president summoned to testify while he is in office, although, in this case, the summons occurs at a stage of investigation that involves his spouse. Previously, Mariano Rajoy had been questioned as a witness during the trial of the Gürtel case, which was related to the irregular financing of the Popular Party. Likewise, Felipe González had to appear in 1991 for the Marey case, related to matters of the Antiterrorist Liberation Groups.
Comparison to Other Presidential Statements
Unlike Mariano Rajoy, who attended the National Court in person in July 2017, despite having requested to testify by videoconference for security reasons and to minimize interruptions to his work, in this case, Judge Peinado will visit the Moncloa Palace to collect the testimony of Pedro Sánchez. In the case of Felipe González, he first appeared in writing during the investigation phase and then, after leaving office, he did so in person before the Supreme Court in 1998. We cannot forget the case of former president José María Aznar, who He also had to testify in 2021 about the alleged ‘box B’ of the Popular Party, this being another of the relevant events in the recent judicial history of leaders in Spain.
History of Testimonies in Mandates
The history of judicial statements by presidents in office or after their term is extensive. Including former president Adolfo Suárez, who in 1995 gave a statement in the context of the Banesto case, it is observed that these situations have been not only an isolated event, but a recurring phenomenon within the Spanish political system. The evolution of the democratic system in Spain has led to investigations into corruption and influence peddling intensifying, even affecting high-ranking officials and always seeking to clarify the events.