The Madrid Provincial Court has limited the jury trial against Begoña Gómez to two charges: influence peddling and embezzlement. Restrictions on her travel have been lifted. The case continues to draw national attention.
The Provincial Court of Madrid has sharply reduced the scope of the criminal case against Begoña Gómez, wife of Spain’s Prime Minister, allowing the proceedings to continue before a jury only for the alleged crimes of influence peddling and embezzlement of public funds. This decision, announced on Thursday, partially overturns the earlier move by Judge Juan Carlos Peinado, who had sought to bring Gómez to trial by jury on four separate charges, including business corruption and misappropriation.
With this ruling, the court has dismissed the jury process for the accusations of business corruption and misappropriation, focusing the legal battle on the two remaining charges. The court also lifted all personal precautionary measures previously imposed on Gómez, including the ban on leaving Spain, the requirement to surrender her passport, and the obligation to report to judicial authorities every two weeks. These restrictions had been in place since the investigation began in April 2024, following a complaint filed by the group Manos Limpias.
The case has attracted significant public and political attention, not least because of Gómez’s connection to the Prime Minister. Judge Peinado had previously closed his investigation by alleging that Gómez used her husband’s position to advance her own career, and ordered her, her assistant at La Moncloa, Cristina Álvarez, and businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés to stand trial on four charges. However, the Provincial Court’s latest decision means the jury will only consider the allegations of influence peddling and embezzlement.
The popular prosecution, led by the ultraconservative association Hazte Oír, is seeking a total of 24 years in prison for Gómez. The case remains highly charged, with legal and political implications that continue to unfold. The court’s decision to limit the charges is seen as a significant development, narrowing the focus of the trial and potentially affecting its outcome.
This legal battle in Madrid comes amid a series of high-profile court cases involving public figures in Spain. For example, the government recently responded to another controversial verdict involving the Prime Minister’s brother, as detailed in a related report on the political fallout from the Badajoz court ruling: the government’s defense of David Sánchez highlights the broader tensions surrounding judicial decisions and political life in the country.
In Spain, jury trials are reserved for specific serious offenses, and the decision to proceed with only two charges reflects the court’s interpretation of the applicable legal framework. The outcome of this case could set important precedents for future proceedings involving public officials and their families. As the trial moves forward, the legal arguments and evidence presented will be closely watched by both the public and political observers. Further updates are expected as the proceedings continue.
