The Prosecutor's Office believes that the fact that Aguirre had "absolute control" of the Madrid PP is "insufficient" to prosecute her

He exempts González despite the "documentary existence of having committed an electoral crime in the autonomous elections of 2007"

MADRID, 20 Jul. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office believes that the fact that the former president of the Community of Madrid Esperanza Aguirre had "absolute control" of the regional PP is "insufficient" to prosecute her in the separate piece of 'Púnica' in which the alleged existence of of a 'box b' of training in the capital.

This follows from the 860-page report, to which Europa Press has had access, which the Public Ministry sent to the head of the Central Court of Instruction Number 6, and in which the prosecutor describes part of the evidence as "weak and inconsistent". , which he considers insufficient "to support a formal accusation" against Aguirre herself.

And, with regard to former regional president Ignacio González, Anti-corruption has asked the instructor to exculpate him equally despite "the documentary existence of having committed an electoral crime in the regional elections of 2007." Specifically, the letter points out, because the facts would have prescribed.

The prosecutor also considers that "there are no signs of changes in the awards, or attempts to divert funds." Likewise, he believes that "the credibility of the initial complainant", the former mayor of Majadahonda Guillermo Ortega, "is manifestly insufficient, both because he is a reference witness, and because of his subsequent procedural position."

As for the alleged leader of the 'Púnica' plot, former minister Francisco Granados, Anti-Corruption makes it clear that his "participation was key" to introduce the 'achiever' of the plot, Alejandro de Pedro, "in the sphere" of the PP in the Community of Madrid and in that of the people who carried out part of the reputation work on which the magistrate has focused.

That is why, in its brief, the Prosecutor's Office asks the judge to send him to the bench for his possible criminal responsibility for an electoral crime, another of bribery and another of influence peddling.