Second Complaint Filed Against Begoña Gómez for Influence Peddling

Hazte Oír expands its legal offensive against Begoña Gómez

Two complaints, one court, and tightening timelines. The association Hazte Oír has filed a complaint against Begoña Gómez for alleged influence peddling, choosing Instruction Court No. 41, the same one that already admitted Manos Limpias' denunciation. The date on the document: April 26, 2024. With this, the matter ceases to be an isolated piece and behaves like an accumulating front.

The organization's spokesperson, Miguel Tomás, defended that it is a well-founded complaint ordered chronologically, "focusing on facts and information." Strong words for what, on paper, is a private initiative without public prosecutor backing. The ball is, again, in the judge's court.

What does Hazte Oír's complaint against Begoña Gómez allege?

The document points to an alleged crime of influence peddling. There is no verdict, no validated indictment, not even confirmed admission: it is a party accusation that must now pass the court filter. It is supported by a private association, not the Prosecutor's Office, and that difference weighs more than it seems when reading the fine print.

Some argue the text's value lies in the narrative and chronological order of chained events. Against this plays a simple argument: without verified evidence, the document ends up in the same drawer as many others. The reasonable doubt is no longer whether there is scandal, but whether the detail withstands scrutiny from an instructor who need not accept it as valid.

Why does it matter that the complaint falls into Court 41?

Because accumulation narrows maneuvering room. With two open fronts in the same office, inadmissibility becomes complicated: the judge would have to justify why they reject one document and admit another that overlaps in facts. For part of the analysis, that is the true objective, more procedural than evidentiary. The coincidence of venue is not administrative chance.

Repeating the number is pressure. The decision to admit or archive becomes, willingly or not, a public stance, and there the instructor loses the comfort of silence. It is the kind of detail that doesn't make headlines but decides the game months later.

The three European denunciations still showing no signs

According to the platform itself, this complaint complements three denunciations filed in previous weeks before the European Public Prosecutor's Office, the State General Prosecutor's Office, and the European Anti-Fraud Office. Three venues, three jurisdictions, and currently administrative silence. The lingering question is whether Brussels will act or look away again.

For those who believe corruption lies beneath, Europe is the last credible resource. For those who see a wear-and-tear operation, those three instances are precisely proof that there is nothing to dig into. Both readings coexist without reconciling, and neither has yet received official confirmation from the European Anti-Fraud Office.

Political calculation: the attack during a pause

The document arrives amid the Spanish Prime Minister's waiting period, with the decision on his continuity set for after the weekend. Several analyses read the complaint as a blow below the waterline just before Monday. It is the old tactic of pressing when the adversary has paused: if the case becomes institutionalized, reflection stops being a personal decision and starts looking like a defensive response.

Others see it the other way around. A complaint from an association without institutional representation can feed the harassment narrative and give ammunition to those presenting themselves as victims of a campaign. Depending on how it is told, it adds or subtracts. Both scenarios fit within the same fact, and neither requires the complaint to succeed to materialize.

Incivil path: the doubt nobody closes

Here the matter stalls. One side recalls that private complaints live or die according to the judicial filter, and without evidence end in nothing. Another argues the case no longer depends on the quality of the writing, but on the atmosphere: with an open investigation, any addition increases pressure. The discrepancy is not minor, because it decides whether this is the beginning of something or the penultimate noise.

In the depths of the story, other names appear. Talk is of alleged minor dealings —Air Europa, Barrabés— which, according to one current, serve to distract from what is truly serious. Any such assertion remains an accusation without a final verdict. And without resolution, noise is all there is.

---

As of this discussion, the verifiable score was rough: two complaints in the same court, three European denunciations, and zero resolutions. One more file does not change the case. It changes the pressure.