The assistant to Begoña Gómez, Cristina Álvarez, appeared before the Juzgado de Instrucción nº 41 in Madrid, requesting an acquittal and an order that the private prosecution organisation HazteOír reimburse costs for “temeridad”, or vexatious conduct. Her lawyer José María de Pablo argues that the actions Juan Carlos Peinado described by the investigating judge are not criminal offences.
The current status of the proceedings is based on a ruling by the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid dated 16 July 2026. The Provincial Court ruled that Álvarez should be charged only with an alleged offence of malversación de caudales públicos (misappropriation of public funds) in connection with a software project run by Universidad Complutense de Madrid The charge of tráfico de influencias (trading in influence) against her was dismissed. At the same time, the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid confirmed that proceedings against Begoña Gómez should continue before the Tribunal del Jurado Whether a jury court would actually have jurisdiction over the part of the case concerning Álvarez is disputed among the parties to the proceedings; the defence considers the case in this respect “doomed to the dissolution of the jury system” and does not expect a jury to have jurisdiction.
At the centre of the case is the domain TransformaTSC, which is alleged to have provided software for measuring social and environmental impact. According to the defence, Begoña Gómez personally arranged for the brand “Plataforma de medición de Impacto Social y Medioambiental TransformaTSC” to be created. Álvarez did not apply for the domain name or arrange its subsequent transfer, nor was she involved in the founding of the company Transforma TSC SL. These points, the lawyer says, disprove personal involvement in the offence and thus the allegation of misappropriation of public funds.
The prosecution had already supported acquittals for Begoña Gómez and Cristina Álvarez. Disciplinary complaints have also repeatedly been filed against investigating judge Juan Carlos Peinado, concerning procedural measures he has taken. Their outcome is decided not by the criminal court, but by the judicial administration.
The following is key to the further proceedings: the investigating judge will decide whether to accept the closing submissions and refer the case to the competent court, including the question of whether a jury has jurisdiction. Further evidentiary steps remain possible regardless. The requested order that HazteOír reimburse costs depends on the court’s assessment of “temeridad” and the organisation’s role as a private prosecutor. Statements by the defence should be treated as such; criminal liability would be established only by a final judgment.
Editor: Phillipe Schmidt-Araguin (Article created with AI assistance).