Julio Iglesias finds himself at the center of another major scandal. His lawyer, José Antonio Choclán, has appealed to prosecutors demanding a copy of the complaint filed against the singer by two former employees through an international human rights organization. According to the defense, Iglesias is in a paradoxical situation: the document directly affecting him has already become public knowledge, yet the accused himself still has no access to it.
Choclán emphasizes that his client is the only one who has not seen the text of the complaint, despite it already circulating in the media and among third parties. In a letter sent to the prosecutor’s office, the lawyer calls this a violation of basic principles of justice and points out that such a situation appears absurd under Spanish law. He insists that Iglesias has a ‘legitimate interest’ in reviewing the accusations to be able to defend himself.
Access to the documents
So far, prosecutors have not permitted Iglesias’s lawyer to officially participate in the preliminary proceedings. Formally, the only question at this stage is whether the Audiencia Nacional has jurisdiction to handle the case and whether there are grounds to open criminal proceedings. Normally, the defense is not given access to case materials at this point, but the lawyer insists that, given the widespread publicity and public discussion, denying access to the complaint appears unfair.
In a letter to the prosecutor’s office, the defense points out that the complaint has already become known not only to the investigative authorities, but also to journalists and representatives of the human rights organization Women’s Link Worldwide. Meanwhile, Iglesias himself, who faces serious accusations, remains unaware of the document’s contents. The lawyer argues that this violates the right to defense and creates unequal conditions for the parties.
The essence of the accusations
The complaint filed in early January contains serious allegations against Iglesias. Two former employees claim that in 2021, while working at his residences in the Dominican Republic and the Bahamas, they faced sexual harassment and were coerced into acts against their will. According to their statements, the singer forced them to undergo gynecological exams as a work requirement and invited them to his room at night. Other staff members, known as house managers, are also implicated in the accusations—they allegedly helped organize these encounters.
Women’s Link Worldwide, representing the interests of the plaintiffs, insists that the case be heard in Spain, citing Iglesias’s citizenship. The complaint lists possible offenses: human trafficking for forced labor and sexual exploitation, infringement of freedom and sexual integrity, harassment, bodily harm, and violation of labor rights.
Public scrutiny and pressure
The situation is further complicated by the fact that details of the complaint have already become public. Major media outlets have published accounts from former female employees, sparking a wave of discussion and speculation. In these reports, the women claim they faced pressure and threats and were forced to comply with demands beyond their official job duties.
Women’s Link Worldwide stated that prosecutors plan to question both complainants as protected witnesses. This is part of a preliminary investigation to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to court. Meanwhile, Iglesias’s defense continues to assert its right to access case materials to prepare arguments and challenge the allegations.
Legal nuances
The singer’s lawyer argues that the National Court does not have authority to investigate incidents that occurred outside Spain. He emphasizes that the accusations relate to events in other countries and that trying to examine them within Spanish jurisdiction is questionable. Nevertheless, Women’s Link Worldwide insists otherwise, citing Iglesias’s citizenship as sufficient grounds for the case to be heard in Spain.
While the prosecutor’s office has yet to reach a final decision, the lawyer continues to seek access to the complaint and official participant status in the case. He maintains that without this, a fair trial and the defendant’s rights cannot be guaranteed. The case has already sparked public outcry and raised questions about the transparency and impartiality of the preliminary investigation.
