Prosecutor Seeks Dismissal of Case Alleging Influence Peddling by begoña Gómez, Partner of Spanish Prime Minister
A prosecutor is requesting the dismissal of a case investigating allegations that Begoña Gómez, the partner of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, exerted undue influence to benefit businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés and his companies. The request was submitted to the Court of Instruction 41 of Madrid following a review of evidence presented in the case.
The examination centers on whether Gómez influenced the awarding of public contracts to Barrabés’ businesses, as well as her role concerning a chair she co-directed at the Complutense University of Madrid, including sponsorship of software for the chair.
However, the prosecutor’s letter argues that the evidence presented does not support accusations of any of the four crimes under investigation: influence peddling, corruption in business, intrusion, and improper appropriation. The prosecutor specifically contends that “the mere conjugal relationship” between Gómez and Sánchez is insufficient to establish influence peddling, and that any such claim requires demonstrating a concrete “economic benefit” which has not been identified.
The prosecutor stresses the need to demonstrate how,when,where,and on whom any alleged influence was exerted,stating that “the mere presence of the person cannot be without further influence.” The submission argues that allegations of influence peddling have been made “with some generality, without specifying or making an imputation with specific and determined facts and based on real and objective evidence.”
Moreover, the prosecutor found “no objective element” to suggest Gómez offered or exercised influence on third parties, nor any evidence of bribery, gifts, or remuneration. The investigation also failed to uncover evidence supporting allegations of intrusion related to university specification writing, or improper appropriation concerning the software sponsorship. An “exhaustive inquiry” into bank accounts and assets also revealed no evidence of illicit enrichment.
The prosecutor also argues that the imputation of Cristina Álvarez, Gómez’s advisor, is unjustified, as any alleged influence peddling on her part would be contingent on establishing influence by Gómez herself. The prosecutor concludes by requesting the case be dismissed, asserting that pursuing the investigation would rely on “fabulous hypothesis and absent correlation” with the evidence, and would be based on presumptions against the investigated.
Notably, Gómez, Álvarez, and Barrabés did not attend the review hearing held on monday.
