A forced entry at Rafael Amargo’s Carabanchel home ended with the dancer and Luciana Bongianino in custody. Police also detained the man accused of breaking in through a window.
Noise from a Carabanchel apartment drew neighbours to their windows shortly after dawn.
A break-in at Rafael Amargo’s Madrid home ended with the dancer and his partner in police custody. The incident unfolded during the early hours of Saturday, 10 October 2026, after a 38-year-old man allegedly forced his way into the property. Police say the confrontation escalated into a fight and continued after officers arrived.
Three people were taken to the Policía Nacional station in Carabanchel. El Mundo reported that Amargo, Luciana Bongianino and the third participant were all detained after the incident.
Shortly before the incident, Rafael Amargo had attended his father’s funeral in Valderru bio, Granada, according to La Vanguardia.
Officers reached the address at around 6.30am after neighbours reported noise and screams. Libertad Digital and La Opinión de A Coruña said the alleged intruder entered by force after breaking a pane of glass. He then confronted Amargo inside the home.
The intervention became more tense when Amargo allegedly assaulted one of the officers.
The 51-year-old dancer was arrested on suspicion of atentado contra la autoridad and causing injuries involving the alleged intruder. Luciana Bongianino, aged 38, was also detained on a separate suspected offence of causing injuries. The third man was taken to the same station on suspicion of allanamiento de morada and threats or aggression.
The legal classification places all three participants within the same police operation, while assigning them different alleged offences. These are preliminary suspicions recorded at the detention stage, not findings of guilt. The available account does not establish how the confrontation began beyond the claim that the third man entered the home by force.
In Amargo’s earlier Codax case, the acquittal was reportedly linked to the exclusion of wiretap recordings and evidence derived from them. Gaceta reported that the decision was later upheld by the High Court of Madrid; that earlier ruling concerns a separate case and does not establish what happened during the new incident.
The case is separate from the political dispute covered in an earlier report and concerns events inside Amargo’s Carabanchel residence.
La Vanguardia said the identity of the third participant and the full sequence of the confrontation had not been publicly established at the time of its report. The motive for the alleged entry remains unclear. So does the precise order of the physical altercation and whether any participant may invoke self-defence.
Amargo’s arrest brings renewed attention to his previous legal battle.
In 2020, he was detained during operación Codax in a case involving alleged drug trafficking from his own home and alleged membership of a criminal organisation. The Fiscalía later sought nine years in prison. The Audiencia Provincial de Madrid acquitted him after a trial held in April 2024. His producer Eduardo de Santos and his associate Manuel Ángel Batista León were also defendants.
During that trial, Amargo acknowledged that he used drugs but denied trafficking. He argued that police had targeted him for a long time and portrayed his home as open to people from different backgrounds. The court dealt with the prosecution’s allegations on the evidence presented in that case and ultimately acquitted him.
The new detention rests on a different episode and different alleged conduct. The immediate dispute began with an alleged forced entry. It then expanded into claims of injuries, an alleged assault on an officer and threats against property. That combination makes the police account more serious than a routine neighbourhood quarrel, while the final legal responsibility of each person remains for the judicial process to determine.
The available independent reports do not include a Policía Nacional statement clarifying the incident, information about the condition of any injured people or a court decision on precautionary measures. Until those details are confirmed, the accounts of the participants and the legal consequences of the confrontation remain subject to investigation and judicial review.
