The defense of Begoña Gómez has warned Judge Juan Carlos Peinado that banking information that you have received from the Judicial Neutral Point, and that reflects a list of accounts with a total balance of 40.25 eurosis “absolutely wrong”while urging him to protect his personal data to prevent it from falling into the hands of “third parties”, including the press.
In a letter, the wife of the President of the Government, represented by the former Minister of the Interior Antonio Camacho, indicates to the head of the Court of Instruction Number 41 of Madrid that “the content of the aforementioned information is absolutely erroneous.” “Both as for theidentification of accounts of which he is the owner, since accounts appear that are not currently the owners of the same; and, above all, in terms of balances, since it is totally uncertain that these accounts almost all have a 0 balance,” he explains.
It refers to the list of 11 bank accounts that the Judicial Neutral Point sent to Peinado after this order “consult the numbering of the checking accounts in which Begoña Gómez appears as the owner“, whom he is investigating for alleged crimes of influence peddling, business corruption, misappropriation and professional intrusion.
Of the once accounts, five are in “owner” statustwo as “authorized” and four as “representative.” The only ones in which any balance is reflected are two in which it appears as the owner: one with 40.10 euros and another with 0.15 euros. The rest of the accounts are at zero euros. The analysis of said accounts covers a period that begins on December 1, 2019 and ends on November 18, 2024 and refers to “products” of type “CV”. However, the Judicial Neutral Point itself indicated that the response obtained was “incomplete.”
Data protection violation
On the other hand, Camacho has disfigured that this information has been added to the case “with all the data that has been sent”, including bank account numbers of which he is the owner, “thereby failing to comply with basic principles regarding data protection and, with it, essential rules in the processing of criminal procedures”.
In line, he emphasizes that, “although in theory access to the evidence provided during a judicial procedure is, without a doubt, very limited in practice, remaining accessible only to judges and courtssecurity forces and bodies and the procedural parties involved, nothing prevents other people (…) from having access to them.”
For this reason, he explains, “the obtaining and providing of evidence must not violate fundamental rights or freedoms and, among them, not the protection of personal data”, also recalling that “in our judicial system the investigating judge is the maximum guarantor of the protection of the rights of those involved and, especially, of the people investigated.”
For Camacho, “the way in which data is being provided throughout this procedure” violates Gómez’s right to “that said personal and reserved data not be in the possession of third parties and sometimes published by the press”, “especially if said data, the account number, does not constitute data that is significant for the purposes of the investigation.”
However, defending that “the numbering of bank accounts does not constitute information that is necessary to know to the parties and, specifically, to the popular accusations,” he asks Peinado “anonymize all that data which, not being necessary for the purposes of the investigation, affect rights that our system recognizes for all citizens and, therefore, also in relation to people subject to a judicial investigation.
#Begoña #Gómez #warns #Peinado #bank #information #reflects #euros #absolutely #wrong
