He admits that his lawyer contacted the prosecutor to “channel and reach” agreement in the “quickest possible” way.


Alberto González Amador, partner of the regional president, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, denounces in the complaint he has filed for alleged revelation of secrets that “no one doubts” that if he had “a romantic relationship” with another person “they would never have been revealed” your tax and procedural data.

This is stated in the complaint that has been filed before the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) against the chief prosecutor of Madrid, Pilar Rodríguez Fernández, and the prosecutor Julián Salto for the informative note broadcast by an official channel in which the Prosecutor’s Office from Madrid reported on the exchange of emails between his lawyer and the prosecutor regarding the investigation into alleged tax fraud.

In the complaint, it is stated first that Alberto’s lawyer intervened in the inspection proceedings, “knowledgeable of the settlement proposal” and above all of the special circumstances of his client “due to the romantic relationship he maintains and its potential effect distorting procedural guarantees”.

He relates that on February 2, his lawyer contacted the Public Prosecutor’s Office by email to “channel and achieve” in the manner provided for in the criminal legislation and as quickly as possible, “the figure analogous to the minutes of conformity already achieved at the tax office, this is criminal conformity”.

According to the complaint, prosecutor Julián Salto responded on February 12 through an email that took “note of the desire to reach agreement, agreeing to remain in contact to advance the negotiations.”

In the proceedings, the defense requests that the defendants be declared as investigated and requires the Madrid Prosecutor’s Office to indicate who or who wrote the aforementioned informative note and who or who were the specific people who intervened in the decision to make said statement public, as well as as the person in charge who agreed or approved the decision to disseminate the statement.

Alberto González denounces in another section that “no one doubts” that if he had “a romantic relationship with a different person or did not have one, he himself would never have suffered” a series of events such as, first of all, “the fact that it was revealed and made public the existence, full content and support of a complaint from the Prosecutor’s Office, before any criminal proceedings were directed against him in any way.

Another extreme is that “the existence and content of the complete tax proceedings attached on CD to the complaint revealed and made public” were revealed and made public, as well as that the existence and chronology were revealed and made public. of secret communications for third parties other than those involved in them”.

It also criticizes the disclosure of “the content of those secret communications, including statements made on behalf of the represented and defended third party not involved in them, in which the position regarding the accusatory claims was openly revealed within the framework of a negotiation of a criminal conformity”.

“Through the previous actions carried out by the representatives of the Public Prosecutor’s Office who, on the occasion of their position, had access to the media, data, information and communications, there has been public disclosure of absolutely all privacy (secret) and tax, procedural and of defense associated with Alberto González Amador,” the complaint states.

It emphasizes that “the secrecy, confidentiality and confidentiality with respect to any third party specifically referring to communications between the representatives of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Lawyers on the occasion of criminal compliances is established as a principle of the Protocol of action for compliance trials signed between the Attorney General’s Office of the State and the General Council of Spanish Lawyers”.

Thus, it points out that “through the public revelations carried out by the defendants, breaking the secrecy of communications and the confidentiality of the negotiation, not only has the greater or lesser strength of the positions of the prosecution and the defense been openly revealed before any potential Judge called to prosecute, but there has been an attempt to extend it to any citizen, sacrificing for this the Public Prosecutor’s Office its duty of secrecy”.

He denounces that in this way he has made “any fair process impossible by having extracted from the roots the essential elements that mean that it cannot be given with all the guarantees, and this irremediably.”

For her part, the Madrid president’s partner is called to testify on May 20 as being investigated for the alleged commission of two crimes of tax fraud and one crime of forgery in a commercial document.

The investigation focuses on the alleged criminal evidence regarding facts related to the Corporate Tax corresponding to the years 2020 and 2021 and an alleged crime of falsification of a commercial document due to invoices having been provided that do not correspond to services actually provided and contributed with the purpose of reducing the tax amount to be paid.

In the order opening proceedings, the judge reasoned that supposedly and “as a consequence of these fraudulent behaviors, the taxpayer has stopped paying a fee of 155,000 euros to the state Public Treasury for the 2020 Corporation Tax and for the companies of 2021, a fee of 195,951 euros, crimes punishable in article 305.1 of the Penal Code in medial competition with a crime of forgery in a commercial document, of article 392.1 in relation to article 390 of the Penal Code.

The Prosecutor’s Office investigated the facts following a report from the Tax Agency that warned of alleged tax fraud when “fictitious expenses based on invoices issued by various companies” were detected during an investigation.

“Expenses that do not correspond to services actually provided and all of this with the purpose of entering into the public treasury less than the amount that corresponded to paying for the Corporate Income Tax for the 2020 and 2021 financial years,” states the prosecutor’s complaint.