MADRID, Spain — The Madrid Provincial Court has upheld the decision to send Begoña Gómez, wife of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, to a jury trial on charges of embezzlement of public funds and influence peddling. In a significant procedural shift, the appellate tribunal simultaneously revoked the charges of business corruption and misappropriation of funds, and ordered the immediate lifting of the strict precautionary measures previously imposed on her by investigating judge Juan Carlos Peinado, including the confiscation of her passport and a ban on leaving the country.
Spanish Judge Orders Begoña Gómez to Justify Travel with Unstamped Passport
The court determined that there is sufficient evidentiary basis to proceed with a jury trial, wherein a panel of nine citizens will evaluate the facts and determine whether the alleged crimes have been proven. According to the court’s ruling, Gómez is accused of leveraging her status as the Prime Minister’s wife to exert influence over officials at the Complutense University of Madrid (UCM). The objective, as outlined by the tribunal, was to secure the creation of an Extraordinary Chair and, within that framework, gather funding from private companies to indirectly obtain economic and reputational benefits.
The court’s ruling detailed that Gómez allegedly exercised influence over the university’s leadership, utilizing her privileged position to ensure the immediate approval of the Extraordinary Chair without adequate verification of the proposed project’s viability. This position subsequently improved her personal academic standing as the director of the chair and facilitated the acquisition of funding for the development of a software asset, which she allegedly intended to claim as her own. The tribunal concluded that the elements of influence peddling were met, citing effective moral pressure, the successful procurement of an administrative resolution, and the pursuit of direct or indirect benefits.
However, the court dismissed the charge of misappropriation of funds, citing three specific legal impediments. The tribunal reasoned that the software in question is an intangible asset, that its alleged diversion was not motivated by a legal obligation requiring restitution, and that the crime of misappropriation strictly applies to private assets, which the software was not in this context. Furthermore, the charge of business corruption has been dismissed for all defendants in this phase of the proceedings.
Alongside Gómez, her advisor at the Prime Minister’s office, Cristina Álvarez, will also face a jury trial, though solely on the charge of embezzlement. The influence peddling charge against Álvarez has been partially and provisionally archived. Meanwhile, entrepreneur Juan Carlos Barrabés has been excluded from this specific trial, as he remains under investigation for separate alleged offenses in another branch of the broader case.
In its written decision, the Madrid Provincial Court firmly rejected defense arguments claiming a “lack of motivation” in Judge Peinado’s initial orders to proceed to a jury trial. The appellate tribunal affirmed that the judicial orders contained a sufficient exposition of the facts under investigation and their potential alignment with the considered criminal statutes, ensuring that all parties were fully informed of the reasoning behind the decision.
In a major reversal of the lower court’s restrictive conditions, the appellate tribunal ordered the lifting of all precautionary measures against both Gómez and Álvarez. The court explicitly stated that there is no demonstrable, real, and effective flight risk that would justify maintaining such severe restrictions. The ruling highlighted that both women have consistently complied with all judicial summons issued to date and maintain strong personal, family, and professional roots within Spanish territory, negating any plausible risk of absconding.
PM’s Wife Begoña Gómez Asks Judge for Travel Permission Amid Corruption Case
As the case moves forward to the oral trial phase, the focus will shift to the presentation of evidence before a citizen jury, which will hold the ultimate authority to weigh the facts and deliver a verdict on the upheld charges.
