The mystery surrounding Begoña Gómez’s statement on June 19

Why has Begoña Gómez’s statement as a suspect been suspended?

Because her lawyer has complained that he is unaware of a second complaint against the wife of the President of the Government, filed by Hazte Oír after the initial one by Manos Limpias, about which the judge also intended to question her.

What does the postponement of the appearance mean?

The postponement means that the questioning will be delayed for two weeks, until 19 July, but for Begoña Gómez it means, above all, that her statement will be made after hearing two key testimonies: that of the rector of the Complutense University, who already appeared yesterday (he was summoned three hours after the wife of the President of the Government) and, above all, that of the businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés, whom Judge Juan Carlos Peinado intends to question on the 15th, four days before, therefore, the turn of the person under investigation.

Is she required to file a return on the 19th?

No. And that is the big question mark regarding this appointment. As a suspect, she can exercise her right not to testify or to do so only when questioned by her lawyer or the parties she considers appropriate. Furthermore, by not appearing as a witness, she is not obliged to tell the truth.

What does Begoña Gómez’s defense gain from the suspension?

He gains time and procedural ammunition to support his complaints about the lack of definition of the object of the procedure. In fact, his lawyer did not miss the opportunity yesterday to describe as surprising the intention of the instructor to also extend the questioning to the Hazte Oír complaint, which according to the lawyer reinforces his complaints about the impossibility of knowing for what facts Begoña Gómez is being investigated after the European Prosecutor’s Office took over the investigation into the contracts that Red.es awarded to Barrabés, and which were financed with community funds, and after the Provincial Court of Madrid limited the investigation precisely to those awards and not to the possible connection of Sánchez’s wife with the rescue of the Globalia Group.

To what do the popular accusations attribute the request for suspension?

For the popular action –executed by Vox, Manos Limpias, Hazte Oír, Iustitia Europa and the Movement for Political Regeneration of Spain–, Begoña Gómez’s defense has resorted to a procedural trick to suspend the questioning, which they consider to be behavior in “bad faith.” According to the popular accusations, grouped under the legal representation of Vox (the first to appear in the case), it is not credible that the lawyer claims that he was not aware of this second complaint given that the parties have been informed of the entire procedure.

Had the judge warned her that he could question her about this new complaint?

Not expressly, but in the resolution in which he recently specified the object of the case, after referring to the facts related to the initial complaint by Manos Limpias regarding the link between Begoña Gómez and Barrabés “since her husband became President of the Government of Spain”, he also alluded to the possible investigation of new facts included in the complaint by Hazte Oír.

Why did Begoña Gómez’s lawyer not acknowledge or file a complaint?

Because Peinado did not include that reference to the complaint in the operative part of the order, which deprived it of executive character for procedural purposes and opened the door for the defense of the investigated to claim defenselessness if questioned in relation to that matter.