A new scandal is erupting around Julio Iglesias, one that threatens to escalate into an international legal battle. Lawyers for the renowned singer say their client is in an absurd situation: he is not being allowed to review the accusations against him, even though the charges have already been made public. Two former employees accuse Iglesias of sexual harassment, aggressive behavior, and workplace exploitation between January and October 2021. According to them, these incidents took place at the artist’s residences in the Dominican Republic and the Bahamas.
The artist’s legal team insists that the prosecutor’s refusal to grant access to case materials violates fundamental rights to defense. They argue the situation is paradoxical—details of the accusations are being discussed in the media and by human rights groups, yet the accused himself cannot even review the substance of the claims. The lawyers maintain that such practices are at odds with the foundations of Spanish justice and the Constitution.
Legal deadlock
In response to the defense’s request, the National Court (Audiencia Nacional) prosecutor took a hardline stance. Agency representative Marta Durántez stated that at this stage of the investigation, granting the defense access to the case is not under consideration. According to her, the main issue now is to determine whether Spanish jurisdiction can even handle the case, since the alleged crimes occurred outside the country.
This approach drew a sharp response from lawyer José Antonio Choclán. He argues that even at the stage of determining jurisdiction, the accused should be able to defend their interests. Moreover, the case information has already become public, and Iglesias himself is the only one unaware of the details of the charges.
Publicity versus secrecy
The artist’s lawyers stress that the case has gained significant public attention. Not only prosecutors and the complainants, but also international human rights organizations and journalists are aware of the substance of the complaint. In this situation, the defense believes that secrecy is no longer justified for the sake of protecting the alleged victims. Furthermore, they are convinced that the complainants themselves deliberately brought the conflict into the public sphere, which rules out any reference to confidentiality.
In their statements, the lawyers note that denying access to the case materials is particularly puzzling given that the charges are already being discussed in the media. In their view, this violates the principle of equality between the parties and calls the impartiality of the investigation into question.
Jurisdiction issues
The defense is paying particular attention to whether a Spanish court has jurisdiction to hear such cases at all. They argue that if the alleged crimes occurred abroad, the trial should take place where the acts were committed. According to the lawyers, Spanish jurisdiction applies only in exceptional circumstances, specifically when local authorities are unable or unwilling to investigate.
Lawyers also emphasize that none of the alleged victims reside permanently in Spain. In their view, this is another argument in favor of transferring the case to courts in the Dominican Republic or the Bahamas.
Right to Defense
In their appeals to the prosecutor’s office, Iglesias’s lawyers insist that their client has the legal right to know what he is being accused of. They demand access to a copy of the complaint and the opportunity to participate in proceedings from the outset. Otherwise, they believe that fundamental human rights—enshrined in Spanish law—are being violated.
The prosecutor’s office, meanwhile, does not intend to change its position. The agency states that the decision to deny the defense access at this stage cannot be appealed. The artist’s lawyers have already warned they will seek to protect their rights in the Constitutional Court if necessary.
International Response
The Julio Iglesias scandal is gaining momentum not only in Spain but also beyond its borders. The allegations against the star are being covered by international media, and human rights organizations are closely monitoring developments. The question of who and where should handle such a sensitive case remains unresolved.
For now, the situation resembles a drawn-out legal duel, with each side trying to gain the upper hand. One thing is clear: the Iglesias case has already become an example of how publicity and secrecy can be sharply at odds, and how jurisdictional questions can turn into a tool for pressure.
