Leticia de la Hoz denies Carmen Pano's bribery accusations and denies having been paid by the PSOE for Koldo García's defense

One of the indications of crime included in the order of Judge Santiago Pedraz, who is handling the Leire Díez case, is the bribery by Koldo García's lawyer, Leticia de la Hoz, of businesswoman Carmen Pano—former mother-in-law of businessman Víctor de Aldama. According to the document, De la Hoz allegedly tried to bribe Pano with 50,000 euros to manipulate her statement before the Supreme Court so that she would deny having taken money in bags to the PSOE headquarters. In this regard, de la Hoz appeared this Tuesday to testify before the magistrate and, in tears, denied Pano's claims.

According to sources present at the declaration accessed by 'laSexta', García's lawyer broke down in tears during her intervention, stating: "For a lawyer to be indicted is something very serious. How is my reputation as a lawyer now restored?" She also refused to say who paid for her defense work for Ábalos's former advisor, invoking professional secrecy while insisting that the businesswoman is lying because she lost a 3% commission on 12 million and needed money, according to the aforementioned media. "Neither the PSOE nor anyone asked me to talk to her about the bags," she concluded, according to 'laSexta'.

The lawyer's documentation

The statement of businesswoman and former mother-in-law of Víctor de Aldama, Carmen Pano, before the Supreme Court once again placed at the center of the investigation her claim of having been the object of an alleged bribe by Koldo García's lawyer, Leticia de la Hoz, to change her testimony in the 'mask case'. However, for the moment, she has not provided documentary evidence to support that version.

Pano maintained that she acted on Aldama's orders and that she made money deliveries linked to an alleged plot related to the granting of licenses in the hydrocarbon sector. However, the controversy of the procedure is not focused solely on her account, but on the absence of solid probative support to accompany it.

In this context, the investigation now incorporates elements that reinforce the opposing position. The defense of lawyer Leticia de la Hoz provided the Central Operative Unit (UCO) of the Civil Guard with documentation, recordings, and messages that seek to discredit the existence of the alleged bribe reported by Pano.

The accusation is not supported by the documentation provided by the lawyer to the Central Operative Unit (UCO) of the Civil Guard—to which ‘Cadena SER’ has had access. The version publicly disseminated on March 10 was accompanied by an audio in which De la Hoz prevented Pano from accessing her office, a conversation that was presented as proof of that alleged bribery attempt.

However, according to the aforementioned media outlet, the audios and WhatsApp messages delivered by the lawyer show a different context. The meeting between the two would have taken place a month earlier at Pano's initiative, who was looking for a buyer for several companies in the hydrocarbon sector. Among them was Gran Zufaira, a company about which the lawyer detected possible irregularities related to an alleged VAT fraud after carrying out the appropriate checks.

The information indicates that, upon being warned of these suspicions, Pano would have acknowledged the situation and proposed continuing with the sale operation, also suggesting receiving an advance commission of 10,000 euros due to her economic difficulties. De la Hoz refused to participate in the transaction, considering that it could be an illicit operation and, days later, learned that Pano had transferred information about her to a digital media outlet.

‘SER’ highlights that all the documentation provided to the UCO revolves exclusively around the negotiations concerning the hydrocarbon companies and contains no references to money deliveries at the socialist headquarters in Ferraz nor to an alleged payment to alter testimonies. Furthermore, the analyzed conversations took place entirely during the month of February and the relationship between the two broke down before the information about the alleged bribery was published, a circumstance that, according to the network, reinforces the version offered by the lawyer.

Thus, the judicial piece moves between two opposing versions: on the one hand, Pano's repeated testimony; on the other, the documentation, recordings, and messages provided by De la Hoz's defense to the investigation.