The judge investigating the complaint filed by Alberto González, boyfriend of Madrid President Isabel Díaz Ayuso, against two prosecutors for allegedly revealing secrets from his investigation into fraud against the Treasury has ordered the Prosecutor’s Office to identify the “most responsible (in rank) ” of the prosecutor’s career that ordered the release of the press release in which it was detailed that González had accepted the commission of two tax crimes.
The magistrate of the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the TSJM who processes the complaint has started the investigation with a first round of preliminary procedures, among which is the summons of Alberto González on May 24 to ratify his complaint. The Madrid Bar Association (ICAM) must also do the same, from where a complaint was also filed for an alleged revelation of secrets.
The magistrate has also agreed to validate the press articles provided by the complaining parties, in order to prove their reality and authentication of said publication and orders to send a letter “to the media that have published them.” It does so “so that, by the corresponding media, the reality and authenticity can be certified, with an expression of the date and time, if applicable, in which the publication was made, with identification of the journalist or author of the journalistic review in question.”
It is also requested that you indicate “who were the specific natural persons who participated in the decision to make public said press release and the highest person in charge (in rank) of the tax career who agreed or gave approval to the decision of spread the statement.”
The magistrate also requests that a list and copy of the original support of all communications maintained by the Prosecutor’s Office (emails received and sent) with Alberto González Amador’s lawyer be sent on the occasion of his defense before and after the statement was made public. .
The Chamber states that “the judgment of admission of a complaint for processing must be highlighted that it neither prejudges in any way nor conditions the procedural outcome of the case.” “It is exclusively a matter, from an indicative point of view, of examining the possible initial criminal appearance of the facts that are charged in the complaint, and provided that there is some element that rationally supports its verisimilitude, beyond the simple statement of the complainant of the existence of a crime without any objective support,” he adds.
