Spanish Supreme Court Upholds Investigation into Attorney General's actions
The court confirms measures to retrieve discarded phones linked to a case involving a purported data leak.
The Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court has ratified investigative steps previously ordered by Judge Ángel Hurtado aimed at retrieving discarded mobile devices belonging to Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz.
This investigation focuses on alleged leaks of confidential tax information pertaining to Alberto González Amador, the partner of Madrid's President Isabel Díaz Ayuso.
The chamber, composed of judges Julián Sánchez Melgar, Andrés Palomo, and Eduardo de Porres, dismissed an appeal by García Ortiz against the decision made by Judge Hurtado, which permitted various investigative measures requested by González Amador.
Among these measures are the collection of identifying data for the mobiles previously used by García Ortiz and details regarding how often he has changed devices.
These actions were initiated following a report from the Central Operational Unit (UCO) of the Civil Guard, which analyzed the mobile phone and computer seized from García Ortiz’s office during a search conducted on October 30, 2024. The UCO's findings revealed that García Ortiz deleted his WhatsApp messages on October 16, 2024, the same day the Criminal Chamber began an investigation into him for alleged breaches of confidentiality relating to Díaz Ayuso's partner.
Agents from the UCO reported that no messages prior to October 16, 2024, were found on García Ortiz's WhatsApp application.
They indicated that the absence of earlier messages was primarily due to the intentional deletion of all content from various conversations, executed on two occasions on the aforementioned date.
Additionally, the UCO highlighted the deliberate deletion of García Ortiz's Gmail account, which had received information regarding emails exchanged between González Amador's defense and monetary crimes prosecutor Julián Salto.
Notably, a significant email dated February 2, 2024, contained an agreement proposal from González Amador's lawyer to the Economic Crime Prosecutor's Office, acknowledging two tax offenses committed by González Amador.
The report stated that retrieving pertinent data from Google Drive backup services was not feasible due to the deletion of the Gmail account, which the service provider confirmed had been removed recently.
There exists a possibility for recovery of this information, as indicated by the UCO.
In response to the new investigative actions instigated by Hurtado, García Ortiz's defense argued a lack of motivation and proportionality in the measures.
However, the Appeals Chamber rejected these claims.
The judges noted that had the messages not been deleted from the confiscated device, many of the subsequent investigative measures may not have been necessary.
The resolution emphasized the appropriateness of identifying whether the subject has used other mobile devices in the months leading to the investigation to uncover potentially relevant communication.
The Appeals Chamber also underscored that searching for other devices does not imply unrestricted access to all data they might contain, stating it would be the responsibility of the instructor to determine what information to access based on the progress of the investigation.
The court confirmed that the actions being undertaken are subject to assessment regarding their justification and proportionality.
Moreover, the chamber dismissed two additional appeals—one from García Ortiz and another from Pilar Rodríguez, Madrid's Chief Prosecutor, who is also under investigation—against the decision of Hurtado to refrain from suspending the analysis of information found on the electronic devices that were confiscated.
This investigation focuses on alleged leaks of confidential tax information pertaining to Alberto González Amador, the partner of Madrid's President Isabel Díaz Ayuso.
The chamber, composed of judges Julián Sánchez Melgar, Andrés Palomo, and Eduardo de Porres, dismissed an appeal by García Ortiz against the decision made by Judge Hurtado, which permitted various investigative measures requested by González Amador.
Among these measures are the collection of identifying data for the mobiles previously used by García Ortiz and details regarding how often he has changed devices.
These actions were initiated following a report from the Central Operational Unit (UCO) of the Civil Guard, which analyzed the mobile phone and computer seized from García Ortiz’s office during a search conducted on October 30, 2024. The UCO's findings revealed that García Ortiz deleted his WhatsApp messages on October 16, 2024, the same day the Criminal Chamber began an investigation into him for alleged breaches of confidentiality relating to Díaz Ayuso's partner.
Agents from the UCO reported that no messages prior to October 16, 2024, were found on García Ortiz's WhatsApp application.
They indicated that the absence of earlier messages was primarily due to the intentional deletion of all content from various conversations, executed on two occasions on the aforementioned date.
Additionally, the UCO highlighted the deliberate deletion of García Ortiz's Gmail account, which had received information regarding emails exchanged between González Amador's defense and monetary crimes prosecutor Julián Salto.
Notably, a significant email dated February 2, 2024, contained an agreement proposal from González Amador's lawyer to the Economic Crime Prosecutor's Office, acknowledging two tax offenses committed by González Amador.
The report stated that retrieving pertinent data from Google Drive backup services was not feasible due to the deletion of the Gmail account, which the service provider confirmed had been removed recently.
There exists a possibility for recovery of this information, as indicated by the UCO.
In response to the new investigative actions instigated by Hurtado, García Ortiz's defense argued a lack of motivation and proportionality in the measures.
However, the Appeals Chamber rejected these claims.
The judges noted that had the messages not been deleted from the confiscated device, many of the subsequent investigative measures may not have been necessary.
The resolution emphasized the appropriateness of identifying whether the subject has used other mobile devices in the months leading to the investigation to uncover potentially relevant communication.
The Appeals Chamber also underscored that searching for other devices does not imply unrestricted access to all data they might contain, stating it would be the responsibility of the instructor to determine what information to access based on the progress of the investigation.
The court confirmed that the actions being undertaken are subject to assessment regarding their justification and proportionality.
Moreover, the chamber dismissed two additional appeals—one from García Ortiz and another from Pilar Rodríguez, Madrid's Chief Prosecutor, who is also under investigation—against the decision of Hurtado to refrain from suspending the analysis of information found on the electronic devices that were confiscated.
Translation:
Translated by AI
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
