The luxury penthouse documents and doubts about their veracity surround Ayuso: they could add two crimes to the investigation

The late and incomplete documentation provided by the government of the Community of Madrid has not only failed to achieve its objective of dispelling doubts, but has increased suspicion about the 'penthouse case' that is shaking Ayuso's, apparently, untouchable leadership. From the PSOE-M they point out that it is not a purchase file but a mere dossier of incomplete data, and they suspect that it may have been fabricated after the controversy erupted.

Should these suspicions be confirmed, it would not be just another lie added to the ups and downs of the Community of Madrid in this matter. The documentation provided by the Minister of the Presidency takes the form of an administrative file, so its manipulation, falsification or omission of elements necessarily leads to a crime of falsification of a public document under art. 390 of the Penal Code. And although it may seem like a minor crime, our Code provides for penalties of up to six years in prison and as many years of disqualification when committed by authorities and officials.

But the effects of this questioned file would not end here. It must be remembered that two investigation procedures are already underway: one before the Court of Accounts and another in an incipient phase before Instruction Court No. 8 of Madrid. In the latter, alleged crimes of administrative prevarication and embezzlement of funds will be investigated. To these crimes could be added that of documentary falsification if the suspicions are confirmed. For now, the head of the judicial body has asked the Prosecutor's Office to confirm its competence to instruct the matter, since she suspects that some of the future accused, such as Ayuso or her Minister of the Presidency, are privileged before the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid.

Once the investigation is formally opened, one of the first steps will be to request the administrative file for the purchase of the penthouse, whose integrity and veracity will be thoroughly examined. At this time, the Community could not refuse or delay its provision under penalty of failing in its legal duty to collaborate with justice. Should its manipulation or alteration be confirmed, a new crime could be added to those already mentioned: the knowing use of a falsified public document in court, typified in this case in art. 393 of the Penal Code.

This scenario is unlikely, as there is too much at stake to make such a crude mistake; although perhaps the PP's expectation of greater leniency from the judiciary could lead it to make a false move. Not in vain, Ayuso has been dodging controversy after controversy, even taking down a Prosecutor General of the State with one of the most deplorable sentences in the history of the Supreme Court. The Spanish Judiciary is going through the biggest credibility crisis in its history, according to many surveys, and the processing of the 'penthouse case' could become the great test for it to demonstrate whether it acts with absolute impartiality or someone controls it "through the back door".