Prosecutors seek acquittal of Begoña Gómez and Cristina Álvarez

The Madrid Provincial Prosecutor’s Office has requested the acquittal of Begoña Gómez, who is under investigation for influence peddling and misappropriation of public funds, and of her adviser at La Moncloa, Cristina Álvarez, who is accused of misappropriation of public funds. In its provisional conclusions, the Public Prosecutor’s Office argues that the facts do not constitute a criminal offence.

The request concerns the case involving the extraordinary chair that Gómez co-directed at the Complutense University of Madrid (UCM), the development of a digital tool within that framework, and the steps taken by Álvarez. This is the position of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, not a court ruling or a decision on the outcome of the future trial.

The Prosecutor’s Office’s arguments about the chair and the software

The prosecutor states that the chair’s creation and operation complied with university regulations and that a specific qualification was not required to direct an extraordinary chair of that kind. The prosecutor also notes that Gómez was not paid for her work as co-director: according to the submission, she received €0 for that role.

Regarding the software developed as part of the project, the Public Prosecutor’s Office argues that the defendants obtained no financial benefit and that there is no evidence of financial loss to the UCM. It adds that the tool remained available to the university and that there is no evidence that Gómez or a company linked to her commercially exploited it or claimed ownership of it against third parties.

These arguments contradict the investigating judge’s position, who considered that Gómez may have used her position to promote her professional activities and that the software may have been appropriated or exploited. The popular prosecution, for its part, maintains its charges. The Complutense University has sought financial compensation in the event of a conviction; that claim is not equivalent to an amount awarded by a court.

The role of the adviser at La Moncloa

Regarding Cristina Álvarez, the Public Prosecutor’s Office argues that hers was a position of trust and that her duties included providing logistical and organisational support to the wife of the Prime Minister. According to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, her actions related to the chair were occasional and did not prevent Álvarez from carrying out the duties of her post.

The investigating judge took a different view: the judge considered that the adviser may have supported Gómez’s professional activities, which were unrelated to the institutional functions of the Presidency. The court ruling and, where applicable, the trial will provide the means to examine the opposing positions; the Public Prosecutor’s Office does not itself determine whether criminal liability exists.

What happens next in the proceedings

After the provisional conclusions have been submitted, the parties have 15 days to appear before the Madrid Provincial Court and raise preliminary matters. The judge who takes over the case will then have to rule on those matters and specify the facts to be brought to trial, as well as set the date for the oral hearing and the jury selection process.

The popular prosecution is the party maintaining the request for a conviction: it is seeking 13 years in prison for Gómez and 6 years for Álvarez. These sentences are a party’s request, not a conviction. The trial date is pending, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s request for acquittal does not dismiss the proceedings: the case must continue through the next judicial stages.