The investigation into Begoña Gómez has become one of the most discussed events in Spain in recent years. Questions about the transparency and legality of the court’s actions have sparked broad public debate. The outcome of this process could shift public attitudes toward judicial investigations of high-level corruption.
Two years under intense scrutiny
Since news of the secret investigation into Begoña Gómez broke in April 2024, the situation has escalated rapidly. The name of the prime minister’s wife has attracted widespread attention, along with that of Judge Juan Carlos Peinado. Over two years, the case gained new figures and accusations, and the judge himself has repeatedly made decisions that provoked debate even among his colleagues.
Peinado, who is due to retire in September, is known for his attempts to hold not only the prime minister’s wife accountable but also other high-ranking officials. Among them are Justice Minister Félix Bolaños and representatives of Universidad Complutense. However, many of these accused were removed from the case following intervention from higher courts.
As El Pais notes, the investigation originally began with a complaint from the Manos Limpias organization, but quickly expanded: political parties, former officials, and even the university became involved in the case. Some accusations were dropped after review by the provincial court, but the main figures—Begoña Gómez, businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés, and adviser Cristina Álvarez—remain involved.
Expanded Charges and New Risks
During the investigation, Judge Peinado added new incidents to the case related to corruption and abuse of power. Specifically, these concern the possible use of connections to promote private projects at the university and the ordering of software from major companies for personal purposes. The case also includes an incident involving letters of support for Barrabés, which enabled him to secure a government contract.
Particular attention was drawn to the charge of embezzling public funds, as the court believes Cristina Álvarez assisted Gómez not only with official but also personal matters. For this, Álvarez was named the main person responsible for the misappropriation of funds, and Gómez was recognized as an accomplice. The defense argues that Álvarez is not a public official and cannot be held guilty of embezzlement, but existing case law allows for this interpretation.
During the investigation, some charges were dropped. For example, the self-management incident related to the signing of contracts at the university was excluded after new evidence emerged. Efforts to expand the case to include support for the airline Air Europa were also unsuccessful: the provincial court twice refused to conduct further investigations into this matter.
Errors and Threats of Annulment
Judge Peinado has repeatedly faced criticism for procedural errors. The provincial court has overturned his decisions to separate certain episodes into separate proceedings and to hand the case over to a jury, citing procedural violations. Nevertheless, the main part of the investigation was deemed justified, and the court continued work on the case.
However, the defense now points to a new threat: in the latest ruling, where the judge proposes to conclude the investigation, new investigative actions are ordered at the same time. According to the lawyers, this contradicts the law and could lead to the complete annulment of the case. The defense has five days to submit objections, after which they can appeal the decision in the provincial court.
According to El Pais, if all procedural issues are not resolved by September, Peinado may not complete the case before retirement. This adds further uncertainty to the prospects of the trial.
Context and similar cases
In Spain, corruption investigations involving high-ranking officials are often accompanied by major scandals and complex legal procedures. For example, in Almería the court recently launched a new investigation against the former head of Diputación on suspicion of misusing budget funds— details of this case sparked broad public outcry. Such cases demonstrate that issues of oversight in public spending and transparency among officials remain central concerns in Spanish society. In recent years, courts have increasingly had to revisit their decisions due to procedural errors, affecting both trust in the judicial system and the effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts.
