The Public Prosecutor's Office has reiterated before judge Juan Carlos Peinado its position that there are no indications of crime in the investigation opened into Begoña Gómez. In its provisional conclusions brief, the Public Prosecutor's Office maintains that the facts analyzed are not constitutive of criminal offenses.
Specifically, the Prosecutor's Office rules out that Begoña Gómez's actions fit into crimes such as influence peddling, business corruption, embezzlement of public funds or misappropriation. These are the main criminal offenses that have been considered during the investigation, but which, according to the prosecutor, are not supported by the investigated facts.
The brief also includes criticisms of the approach of Judge Peinado, whom it reproaches a certain “vagueness” in the investigation. The Prosecutor's Office considers that the instructor has tended to mix different types of crimes and to relate them to each other without a clear basis, which makes it difficult to correctly define the object of the procedure.
Furthermore, the Public Prosecutor's Office refers back to the appeal previously filed before the Audiencia de Madrid, in which it already requested the dismissal of the case. In that document, the Prosecutor's Office maintained that, after two years of proceedings, no solid evidence has been found that justifies the continuation of the investigation nor the opening of an oral trial.
In that same appeal, the Prosecutor's Office went so far as to point out that the hypotheses raised during the investigation were based on inconsistent constructions and a forced interpretation of the facts. Therefore, it insists that there is no sufficient criminal basis to maintain the procedure against Begoña Gómez, and argues that the appropriate course of action is the definitive dismissal of the case.
