MADRID, 24 Oct. (EUROPA PRESS) –

Alberto Luceño has reiterated to Judge Adolfo Carretero in a brief that he exclude from the investigation of the case of the masks private information that affects his privacy contained in the computer devices seized during the entry and search of the headquarters of Takamaka Investments S.L.

In a letter dated this Monday, to which Europa Press had access, the investigated appeals in reform the ruling by which the magistrate denied on October 19 the request to open an expurgation piece to proceed with the elimination of data that does not affect to the cause.

Judge Carretero opened last September at the request of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office a separate piece to investigate the communications between Alberto Luceño and the Malaysian businessman San Chin Choon, the supplier of the sanitary material that was sold to the Madrid City Council.

The magistrate argued that “it was not appropriate to carry out the opening of any separate piece of expurgation, since the final police report arising from the dump of computer data has not been sent to this Court, and once it has been received it will be remembered whatever proceeds with respect to what is intended in this writing”.

Already in another letter, Luis Medina’s partner requested in October that the entry and search orders at the headquarters of his company carried out on September 22 be revoked and annulled.

In said procedure, the National Police located a plate that said “authority agent of the National Intelligence Center (CNI)” and several impressions of images of cards of the National Police and the Ministry of Defense.

Now, Luceño replies to the judge that the basis for the initiation of an expurgation piece is “the protection of the intimacy and privacy of those whose intimacy could be undermined by indiscriminate access to the content of the seized effects.”

And he points out that “the usual judicial practice is to initiate this piece at the moment in which the seized devices are available to the acting force, in order to prevent the police from accessing data that affects” their privacy.

“The police have some devices, but at no time have they been told what to look for, with what limits, on what issues, etc,” he stressed.

For this reason, it insists that it is “the only measure capable of guaranteeing both the correct investigation of the case and that the acting force can investigate the facts that are the subject of this investigation and safeguard the right to privacy of those affected.”