At the center of the high-profile investigation is Cristina Álvarez, advisor to Begoña Gómez, wife of the Spanish Prime Minister. She has filed a statement insisting that Judge Juan Carlos Peinado chose the wrong procedure to obtain more than a hundred emails sent to former Complutense University (UCM) vice-rector Juan Carlos Doadrio. Investigators believe these emails shed light on Álvarez’s negotiations with companies and organizations potentially willing to fund the department jointly headed by Gómez and Doadrio.
Judge Peinado requested the email correspondence from Doadrio after he mentioned it during questioning. Álvarez’s defense argues that such a request required not just an order, but a formal court ruling. However, the Madrid Provincial Court upheld Peinado’s actions, citing that Doadrio allegedly expressed willingness to provide the emails himself.
Legal battles
Álvarez’s lawyer insists that in the interrogation recordings there is not a single moment where Doadrio voluntarily offers to hand over the emails. In his first conversation with the judge on July 19, 2024, he did not even mention the existence of the correspondence. In the second, on January 22, 2025, he only noted that he had reviewed the emails—just over a hundred in total—but did not offer to hand them over. At the third meeting, on November 16, Doadrio finally handed over the emails, but only after an official court order.
The significance of these letters is hard to overstate. They document Alvarez’s contacts with potential sponsors of the UCM Department of Social Competence Transformation, as well as with companies considering funding options. Begoña Gómez, speaking before the judge on September 10, admitted that she sometimes asked Alvarez to forward messages on her behalf, but only as a personal favor, given that they were friends.
Details of the correspondence
Experts from the Central Operational Unit of the Civil Guard (UCO) analyzed 121 letters exchanged between Doadrio and Alvarez, some of which were copied to Gómez. In one of the earliest episodes, dated July 2021, Reale discussed with UCM a contribution of 60,000 euros for the department’s needs. In another letter, sent on July 11, 2022, Alvarez addressed Miguel Escassi, head of institutional relations at Google, proposing that the company invest 40,000 euros annually in the project.
The correspondence also includes messages related to preparations for the department’s summer course. On July 6, 2022, Alvarez sent Doadrio Gómez’s résumé at the university’s request for participation in the Summer School, along with a list of questions planned for Pedro Sánchez’s wife and two other participants in the event.
Investigation and suspicions
Begoña Gómez remains the main figure in the case, alongside Cristina Álvarez and businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés. The investigation is pursuing several leads: business corruption, influence peddling, embezzlement, bribery, illegal brand appropriation, and professional overreach. Judge Peinado is seeking to determine whether any laws were broken in the fundraising and allocation of funds for the university department.
Meanwhile, Complutense University has submitted to the court records of expenses for the development of the department’s software, which Gómez headed. According to this documentation, the total cost reached €113,509.32, with €108,765.79 spent on the platform’s development and €4,743.53 for employee salaries. The university maintains that if the court finds Gómez guilty of unlawful appropriation of software, UCM should be recognized as the injured party and entitled to compensation.
Unanswered questions
The situation surrounding the letters from Álvarez and Doadrio is growing increasingly complex. The advisor’s defense insists on a review of the court’s decision, arguing that their client’s rights have been violated. At the same time, investigators continue to analyze the correspondence, trying to determine whether any violations actually occurred and who will be held responsible.
This story is much more than a debate over legal technicalities. The reputation of high-profile individuals, substantial sums, and trust in the system are at stake. The list of questions keeps growing, while the answers seem yet to come.
