The case against Begoña Gómez, wife of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, has moved closer to a jury trial on allegations of influence peddling and misappropriation of public funds. On 13 July 2026, the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid narrowed the case, retaining those allegations while excluding accusations of business corruption and misappropriation. It also removed businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés from the proceedings and lifted Gómez’s precautionary restrictions. Her passport was returned and the travel ban lifted; she no longer has to report to court periodically.
On 21 September, Judge Juan Carlos Peinado of Madrid’s Juzgado de Instrucción n.º 41 ordered oral proceedings. The remaining allegations include two claims of public-funds misappropriation: one linked to the work of Gómez’s Moncloa assistant, Cristina Álvarez, and another concerning software developed in connection with Gómez’s university chair at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Reporting identifies Minsait as the company that allegedly hired Álvarez’s husband to develop the software. The charges remain allegations, and no court has issued a final finding of criminal liability.
The case is to be heard by a popular jury of nine citizens, with a professional judge presiding and substitute jurors available. The jurors had not been selected, and no trial date had been set; Spanish reporting indicated proceedings were not expected to begin before 2027. Private accusers, including Hazte Oír, reportedly seek 13 years in prison for Gómez and six years for Álvarez. Those are requests by the accusers, not sentences imposed by a court. The public prosecutor and the defenses have sought acquittal.
The government and the PSOE have defended Gómez’s innocence and described the proceedings as politically motivated. In a statement on X, the PSOE said the case was designed to harass and persecute the Prime Minister’s wife. Government representatives have also argued that the proceedings are political in nature.
Opposition parties, particularly the Partido Popular (PP), have used the case to criticize the government. The PP has said the appellate ruling shows that judicial institutions are functioning and accused the government of supporting judicial independence only when decisions go its way, echoing comments by party leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo. PP spokespersons have also cited the case involving David Sánchez, the Prime Minister’s brother, as evidence of what they describe as a broader problem of corruption in Sánchez’s family environment. These are political claims, not findings in Gómez’s case.
Sumar, the government’s junior coalition partner, called the decision to proceed to a jury trial “nonsensical.” The party has argued that the proceedings risk inflicting political damage on the Prime Minister’s circle and has criticized the investigation, particularly after the appellate court excluded two allegations. The parties’ statements reflect political positions and do not determine the case’s outcome.
The announcement of oral proceedings followed a separate ruling by the Audiencia Provincial de Badajoz concerning David Sánchez, who was barred from public office for nine years. That ruling did not establish who initiated the job creation at the centre of the case, and David Sánchez was acquitted of influence peddling. Judicial independence and political pressure remain recurring themes in Spain’s public debate. For further context, see this analysis of a former Supreme Court president’s warning about political pressure on judges.
Information from the General Council of the Judiciary, 92% of jury trials in Spain in 2016 resulted in convictions, with 16 acquittals among 209 cases. That historical figure does not determine the outcome of Gómez’s proceedings, which the jury will decide based on the admissible allegations. The case is expected to draw continued attention for its legal and political implications, including debate over the separation of powers.
