At the center of the high-profile investigation is former Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party member Leire Díez. She has appealed to the court to declare all audio recordings in the alleged influence and corruption case invalid. According to her defense, these materials were obtained in violation of fundamental rights to privacy of correspondence and communication.
The proceedings are being overseen by Madrid judge Arturo Zamarriego, who previously summoned Díez and businessman Javier Pérez-Dolset to testify. Investigators suspect them of coordinated actions aimed at obtaining confidential information from prosecutors and the Civil Guard. The court claims their goal was to interfere with investigations involving prominent politicians and business figures.
A key episode in the case is a recording made by prosecutor Ignacio Stampa during a meeting with Díez and Pérez-Dolset on May 7. On this recording, Díez refers to herself as someone close to Santos Cerdán, which investigators believe may indicate her role in the suspected influence scheme.
However, lawyer Díez insists that the prosecutor acted without judicial authorization and launched his own investigation without notifying the court or formalizing the necessary documentation. The defense argues that such actions violate the right to confidential communications, and therefore all obtained audio recordings should be excluded from the case. The complaint stresses that the prosecutor not only lacked a mandate but also failed to report potential violations after the meeting, casting doubt on the legality of the entire evidence-gathering procedure.
The hearing on this issue unfolded in a tense atmosphere. Díez and Pérez-Dolset were summoned to the courtroom to listen to three and a half hours of recordings made during their conversation with the prosecutor. The judge decided to have them listen together so both parties could fully review the audio materials.
The legal proceedings are ongoing, and the decision on the admissibility of the recordings could significantly impact the course of the case. If the court grants the defense’s motion, key evidence may be excluded, jeopardizing the prospects of the investigation. If not, the materials will remain in the case and be used to assess the role of Díez and other individuals allegedly involved in influencing the investigation process.
