He denies the deduction of testimony for revealing secrets in relation to the leaks of the recording of his judicial statement
Judge Adolfo Carretero, who instructs the case of the masks in Madrid, has refused to charge Luis Medina with the alleged commission of a crime of concealment of assets, considering that it does not leave him defenseless, although he points out that it may be without effect in the moment in which the amount of the inheritance available to the aristocrat is recorded in the procedure.
In an order this Thursday, to which Europa Press had access, the instructor dismisses the appeal for reform filed against the resolution issued on April 20, which confirms and in which the deduction of testimony from actions for alleged crime of revelation of secrets due to the leaks of the recording in the court of Luis Medina’s judicial statement.
Medina’s lawyer argued in his brief that the order was void for rendering his client defenseless, since in his opinion it suffered from “motivation”, was “confusing” and “did not explain the patrimonial movements that the raising of assets consists of” .
The lawyer maintained that his client has not made “any movement in his assets after them, there being a Judgment of the Court of First Instance number 12 of Seville in his favor on the inheritance of his grandmother that fully covers the bail.”
Against, the judge now affirms regarding the defenselessness and lack of motivation of the car that “the investigated knew his imputation from the moment of his statement, answering the questions that were asked about the seizure of assets.”
It states that the appealed order contains in a “succinct” way the reason for the accusation “such as” making patrimonial operations of money outflows from their accounts after their declaration before the prosecutor, referring to article 257-1 of the Penal Code, which regulates the crime of concealment of assets when, due to a simple material error, number 2 of said article should have appeared«.
For this reason, it insists that “the investigated party made his asset provisions before a process of foreseeable initiation, as it turned out, without it having anything to do with the fact that after the embargoes issued by this Court, he has not made any asset provision.”
“His conduct provisionally fits into the crime of concealment of assets mentioned, although the car spoke of number 1 of the legal precept, since the conduct typified in it is fully described,” he stresses.
Know the amount
In another section, it is pronounced on the offer of his hereditary rights as a reason to annul the imputation of seizure of assets, since the appealed order called for his investigation to seize the same before the investigated party made the offer for having news of them. .
However, the magistrate points out, “the aforementioned offer will become effective when the amount of his hereditary rights is officially recorded in the procedure, the sentence that declares them and the part corresponding to Medina through the warrant that will be sent to the Court of First Instance number 12 of Seville».
It will be then when the imputation of concealment of assets can be left without effect, as it is understood that “there is no intent to conceal his assets and even by completing the bail if it covers the required amount, despite the fact that the embargoes made in case it were the aforementioned Judgment has been revoked.
“The imputation of asset seizure that is merely provisional and can be rendered ineffective at any time before the Abbreviated Procedure Order if it is dictated and even in the same Order,” he adds.
In the last section, the judge responds to Medina’s complaints about the leaking of the recording of his judicial statement, an extreme that Carretero assures that he shares.
“This instructor fully shares the criticism of the leaks to the media made by the investigated party, among other reasons, because they have also affected his own image, and the prosecutor, but he shares his opinion that any of the personal accusations can leak the proceedings. without the necessary connivance of any public official and that said conduct is only punishable by a fine in article 301 of the Criminal Procedure Law”, he points out in this regard.
Finally, it emphasizes that “at the time that this Court has express evidence of a clear leak by any of the parties or other persons, it will deduce testimony immediately.”
Eddie is an Australian news reporter with over 9 years in the industry and has published on Forbes and tech crunch.