The Prosecutor's Office requests the dismissal of the case against García Ortiz
The Prosecutor's Office has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case against the State Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, and the Madrid Provincial Prosecutor, Pilar Rodríguez, who are charged with disclosure of secrets for leaks related to the tax fraud case involving Isabel Diaz Ayuso's partner.
The Supreme Court's deputy prosecutor, María de los Ángeles Sánchez Conde, refuses to appeal the amended indictment before the judge and is appealing directly to the Chamber with a brief in which she challenges Judge Angel Hurtado's "novel" assertion that the prosecutors acted on instructions from Moncloa and argues that the key email was already known before the Attorney General obtained it.
Chief Prosecutor of the Madrid Province, Pilar Rodríguez
Borja Sánchez-Trillo / EFEIn his order to transform the case into an abbreviated procedure, equivalent to an indictment, the judge considers that the prosecutor leaked the email of February 2, 2024, in which Alberto González Amador's lawyer "by mutual agreement" admitted to the prosecutor the commission of two tax offenses, "following instructions received from the Presidency of the Government," although he does not provide further details in his statement.
The prosecutor emphasizes that "none of the multiple resolutions and procedural acts mentions the existence of instructions received by the Attorney General from the Presidency of the Government or that his actions were compromised by external instructions."
Read also García Ortiz: "Lies cannot defeat an attorney general." The Vanguard
Therefore, "such an accusation is introduced ex novo" and "without any evidentiary basis," which leads to a "clear lack of defense for those under investigation" because at no point have they been questioned or informed about it during the proceedings, nor has any evidence been proposed to prove or refute this claim. This leads her to declare the "absolute lack of evidence regarding the transmission of the email from the Attorney General's Office."
The Prosecutor's Office assures that there is no evidence of the leak.The court also explains that the evidence against both suspects is based on a temporal inference derived from the moment the email was made available to the Attorney General and the moment the SER network reported on it, "an incomplete inference due to the lack of proven relevant facts." Furthermore, it asserts that there is no evidence of a leak by the Attorney General.
Among them, he highlights the fact that "the judge himself acknowledged that prior to the alleged leak" of the February 2 email, "the existence of an offer of an agreement by González Amador to admit to two tax offenses was circulating in the media"; and that the UCO agents who investigated the leak stated that "a number of people" were also aware of the existence of this prior offer.
He emphasizes that the agents "acknowledged that they had not obtained any evidence that the leak had been carried out by the Attorney General" and that "there is also no evidence of collusion" between García Ortiz and Rodríguez to carry out the leak. He adds that "a number of people have stated that they were in possession of the email, examined it, or knew its contents before the Attorney General obtained it," including several journalists who stated that they "had the information" regarding the email "in advance." He provides a report from La Sexta that would demonstrate that the prosecutor did not leak it.
In this regard, the Attorney General's Office provides a note that reports on recent information from the television network about a reporter who sent a message to the court chat informing them that they were aware of Ayuso's partner's confession.
The message was sent at 9:54 p.m. on March 13, five minutes before the emails reached the Attorney General, which, in his opinion, would demonstrate that the journalist was aware of the information before García Ortiz.
Regarding the information note published on the morning of March 14 by the Prosecutor's Office, which triggered the proceedings, it explains that its purpose was to "report" on the Prosecutor's Office's procedural conduct "in a matter of undoubted importance," in the face of "information proven to be false, accusing the institution of anomalous conduct for political reasons."
lavanguardia
