The Prosecutor's Office opposes the investigation of Dina Bousselham for false testimony in the courts of Madrid

He believes that his contradictions do not alter the result of the expert that says that it cannot be proven that Iglesias tore up the card

MADRID, 27 Abr. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office has informed the Criminal Chamber of the National Court that it is not appropriate for the Madrid courts to investigate the former Podemos adviser Dina Bousselham and her ex-husband Ricardo Sa Ferrerira for alleged crimes of perjury, false denunciation and simulation of the crime , as requested by the examining magistrate of the 'Villarejo case', Manuel García Castellón.

The letter of the prosecutors Miguel Serrano and César de Rivas, to which Europa Press has had access, arises as a response to the appeal of the former 'morada' adviser against the resolution of the instructor of September 1, 2022 by which he agreed to deduce testimony against her.

The judge understood that he could have committed a crime of false testimony when he testified as a witness in piece 10 of the 'Tandem case', which investigates the theft of his mobile phone at the end of 2015 and the subsequent use of the files it contained.

Precisely this week it emerged that García Castellón had once again asked the Madrid courts to investigate whether the former Podemos adviser committed this alleged crime of false testimony after verifying that the initial complaint that she sent to the judicial headquarters in September was lost.

The instructor also agreed in September 2022 to ask the Courts of Alcorcón (Madrid) to investigate whether the former adviser committed an alleged crime of false accusation and complaint and/or crime of simulation of the crime. However, the judge of Alcorcón Agustín Carretero - who by distribution had to study this matter - agreed to return the case to the National Court, concluding that if it was deduced that Bousselham lied in court and in police headquarters - false complaint -- "following" a "strategy", it was appropriate for both things to be investigated as a whole and not separately.

García Castellón then clarified to the Alcorcón judge that he himself should be in charge of referring the matter to the Madrid courts if he considered that these were the ones who should take charge of this case.

Now, in their brief, the prosecutors in the case indicate that Bousselham's appeal should be upheld and they refer to what they already indicated in July 2022 in response to the Prolege popular accusation that focused on the contradictions in the statements of both Sa Ferreira as Bousselham.

Then, the prosecutors explained that once the witness statements were examined, "the vague contradictions of their versions of the facts for which they were questioned" were evident, but that it could not be considered that they had altered " in any way the result of the expert report on the origin of the damage to the card".

It should be remembered that this report said that the attribution to the former vice president of the Government and former leader of Podemos Pablo Iglesias of a crime of computer damage to that Bousselham card that was in his hands for months after Antonio Asensio provided it to him was "unfeasible".

The prosecutors also emphasize that once the investigation phase is over, "it is highly foreseeable that both witnesses will have to testify in the oral trial on the same facts." Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of article 715 of the Criminal Procedure Law (LECrim) they do not consider it appropriate to proceed at this time for a crime of false testimony against them.

Nor do they see that a new separate piece should be opened in 'Tandem' to proceed against them for the crime of false testimony as related to the crime of discovery and disclosure of secrets that is investigated in piece 10. They remember that the object of the cause and its different separate pieces are focused on the alleged illegal activities of retired commissioner José Manuel Villarejo and his organization.

Therefore, "the investigation within this same procedure of alleged criminal behavior committed by persons outside the aforementioned organization is inappropriate," they conclude.