Spain's top prosecutor poised to face trial over leak accusation
MADRID (Reuters) -Spain's Supreme Court is set to put the prosecutor general on trial over allegations of leaking confidential information in a tax fraud case involving the partner of a leading opposition figure, according to a court document seen by Reuters on Monday.
The case is at the heart of frictions between Spain's centre-left national government and the right-wing leader of the Madrid region, Isabel Diaz Ayuso, with each side accusing the other of corruption.
The investigative judge's decision that the case against Prosecutor General Alvaro Garcia Ortiz warrants trial is unprecedented since Spain's return to democracy in 1978.
The government appointed Garcia Ortiz, 57, to the post in August 2022. A member of a progressive jurists' association, he has a background in environmental law and led the public prosecution in the high-profile Prestige oil spill.
In his writ, judge Angel Hurtado said there was enough evidence to proceed against Garcia Ortiz on accusations of sharing with media the contents of an email exchange between the lawyer representing Ayuso's boyfriend, Alberto Garcia Amador, and the regional prosecutor's office.
Hurtado's decision can still be appealed.
In the leaked email, Garcia Amador's attorney offered his client's admission to two counts of tax fraud in exchange for a negotiated settlement with Madrid prosecutors to avoid jail penalties. Garcia Amador later testified in court that he had no knowledge of the proposed deal.
Hurtado, who launched the case last October, said the email held sensitive personal information, protected under lawyer-prosecutor confidentiality, and claimed that Garcia Ortiz acted under instructions from Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez's office in order to "win the narrative".
Sanchez said at the time that the prosecutor was "doing his job, going after delinquents".
The judge said Garcia Ortiz had erased data from his mobile devices during the investigation, which he labelled an act of "obstruction of justice".
Garcia Ortiz has refused to resign and repeatedly defended his innocence and impartiality. His office said in a statement on Monday he would "continue defending the actions and integrity of the institution he represents".
Justice Minister Felix Bolanos said he had full confidence in Garcia Ortiz and called him an "exemplary public servant".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
5 minutes ago
- New York Times
Someone Is Defying the Supreme Court, but It Isn't Trump
Since President Trump returned to the presidency for a second term, legal scholars and political writers have wrestled with a particular preoccupation: What if he defies court orders? When actual examples of the administration violating court orders turned out to be hard to find, and contestable in any given case, some commentators broadened the notion of defiance to include so-called malicious compliance (or legalistic noncompliance). The idea here is that even if the president or his agents did comply with the terms of court orders, however unreasonable, they might be doing so in bad faith, with the covert motive of actually evading or circumventing the point of the order. The issue of defying court orders is still with us — but it has taken a twist. Now the defiance is coming from inside the judicial branch itself, in the form of a lower-court mutiny against the Supreme Court. District Court judges, and in some cases even appellate courts, have either defied orders of the court outright or engaged in malicious compliance and evasion of those orders, in transparent bad faith. In the past decade or so, increasing judicial overreach has caused harm to our constitutional order by limiting the ability of the executive branch to implement the program it was elected by the American people to pursue. It has been a scourge for both recent Republican and Democratic presidents, and it may provoke extreme measures to restore order. The recent defiance goes even further, threatening to damage the internal integrity of the judiciary, which ultimately relies on lower courts to follow the Supreme Court's direction. Consider Judge Brian Murphy of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts. Judge Murphy issued a preliminary injunction against the transfer of removable aliens to third countries, in cases in which the transfer was expressly permitted by federal law. So far, this was just an ordinary example of judicial overreach. But after the Supreme Court issued an order to stay — that is, to stop — the preliminary injunction while litigation proceeded (over a dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor), Judge Murphy went beyond overreach. He decided that his order enforcing the injunction that the court had stayed nonetheless remained in effect — a proposition for which his only cited authority was the dissent from Justice Sotomayor. This seemed to be malicious, whether or not it counts as 'compliance' at all. The Supreme Court, with the notable concurrence of Justice Elena Kagan, then had to stay this second order and explain that Judge Murphy's renewed effort was also illicit. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
NBC News
35 minutes ago
- NBC News
Pakistan says it wins U.S. tariff deal; Trump cites oil reserves pact
The United States and Pakistan said they had clinched a deal that Islamabad described as leading to lower tariffs on its exports, while President Donald Trump trumpeted a pact to help develop the South Asian nation's oil reserves. Neither mentioned the tariff rate agreed. Pakistan, which Washington has designated a 'major non-NATO ally' in its effort to counter rival China 's influence in the region, faced a potential tariff of 29% declared in April that was later suspended for 90 days to allow trade talks. 'We have just concluded a Deal with the Country of Pakistan, whereby Pakistan and the United States will work together on developing their massive Oil Reserves,' Trump wrote on social media. 'We are in the process of choosing the Oil Company that will lead this Partnership.' He gave no further details. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar also confirmed the deal. 'Deal concluded,' he told Reuters, without elaborating. Although Trump did not mention a tariff deal, Pakistan's finance ministry said Thursday that it would lead to 'reduction of reciprocal tariffs, especially on Pakistani exports to the United States,' but stopped short of revealing the figure. 'This deal marks the beginning of a new era of economic collaboration especially in energy, mines and minerals, IT, cryptocurrency and other sectors,' it said. The deal was a win-win situation for both nations, Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb, who led the final round of talks in Washington, said in video remarks. 'From our perspective, it was always going beyond the immediate trade imperative, and its whole purpose was, and is, that trade and investment have to go hand in hand,' he added in the statement from his office. Last week, Dar said both nations were 'very close' to a trade deal that could come within days, after he met Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday. They discussed expanding trade and ties in critical minerals and mining, the two sides said afterward. Other Pakistani officials have also visited for talks in recent weeks. Under Trump, Washington has sought to renegotiate trade deals with many countries that he threatened with tariffs for trade relations he calls unfair, a characterization many economists dispute. U.S. total goods trade with Pakistan was an estimated $7.3 billion in 2024, the office of the U.S. trade representative says on its website, up from about $6.9 billion in 2023. In 2024, its goods trade deficit with Pakistan was $3 billion, up 5.2% from 2023. Trump also said Washington was still negotiating with India on trade after he declared that a tariff of 25% on goods imported from Pakistan's arch foe would start from Friday. Pakistan recently said it 'appreciated the pivotal role' of Trump and Rubio 'in de-escalating tensions between Pakistan and India by facilitating a ceasefire.' Trump has repeatedly taken credit for the India-Pakistan ceasefire he announced on social media on May 10 after Washington's talks with both sides. India disputes Trump's claims that the ceasefire resulted from his intervention and trade threats. Its position is that New Delhi and Islamabad must resolve problems directly with no outside involvement. deadly April 22 militant attack in India-administered Kashmir for which India blamed Pakistan.
UPI
4 hours ago
- UPI
Trump admin. hits Brazil with tariffs, sanctions over Bolsonaro case
Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes participates in a June 9 hearing on the criminal case against former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. On Wednesday, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned the judge. File Photo by Andre Borges/EPA July 30 (UPI) -- The Trump administration on Wednesday hit Brazil with tariffs and sanctions over the criminal case against former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro. President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday imposing a 40% tariff on Brazilian goods, for a total levy of 50%. The executive order accuses Brazil of taking actions that harm and threaten the economy of the United States as well as mentioning Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, whom the American president said abused his judicial authority "to target political opponents," specifically Bolsonaro, a Trump ally. It also cites other prosecutions and censorship of social media in the South American nation. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday also announced sanctions against de Moraes, which include the blocking of all of his property and investments in the United States. "Alexandre de Moraes has taken it upon himself to be judge and jury in an unlawful witch hunt against U.S. and Brazilian citizens and companies," Bessent said in a statement. "De Moraes is responsible for an oppressive campaign of censorship, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions -- including against former President Jair Bolsonaro. Today's action makes clear that Treasury will continue to hold accountable those who threaten U.S. interests and the freedoms of our citizens." The action by the Treasury Department is based on the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act and targets perpetrators of serious human rights abuses worldwide. De Moraes was appointed to the Brazilian Supreme Court in 2017. "Since that time, de Moraes has become one of Brazil's most powerful individuals, wielding immense authority through his oversight of expansive STF investigations," the Treasury Department release said. "De Moraes has investigated, prosecuted, and suppressed those who have engaged in speech that is protected under the U.S. Constitution, repeatedly subjecting victims to long preventive detentions without bringing charges. "Through his actions as an STF justice, de Moraes has undermined Brazilians' and Americans' rights to freedom of expression. In one notable instance, de Moraes arbitrarily detained a journalist for over a year in retaliation for exercising freedom of expression." The judge is investigating online misinformation and has ordered the takedown of social media accounts that violate Brazil's freedom of speech. In 2024, Elon Musk's X restored service in the country after paying a $5 million fine and appointing a new legal representative there. Trump's social media company, The Trump Media & Technology Group, sued de Moraes in February, accusing him of censoring conservative voices on social media. On July 19, Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked the visas of the judge and his family members. De Moraes doesn't travel often to the United States, The Washington Post reported. "President Trump made clear that his administration will hold accountable foreign nationals who are responsible for censorship of protected expression in the United States," Rubio said in a statement then. "Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes's political witch hunt against Jair Bolsonaro created a persecution and censorship complex so sweeping that it not only violates basic rights of Brazilians, but also extends beyond Brazil's shores to target Americans." The announcement came 11 days after the State Department revoked de Moraes' visa. The visa restriction policy is pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the secretary of State to deny entry to anyone whose entry into the United States "would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." The judge is on the judicial panel presiding over Bolsonaro's trial before Brazil's Supreme Court. He was indicted in February after an alleged coup. Bolsonaro has been accused of attempting to violently retain power after his 2022 election loss to Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Lula, in a speech earlier this month, condemned Bolsonaro's supporters, whom he accused of siding with Trump about the "witch hunt." "They're the true traitors of the homeland," he said. "They don't care about the economy of the country or the damage caused to our people." Four days before Rubio's order, Trump called the nation's treatment of the former leader a "witch hunt." Trump wrote a letter to Lula threatening a 50% tariff on imported goods on Aug. 1 because of how Bolsonaro "has been treated" and an "unfair trade relationship." The United States has a trade surplus, exporting roughly $49 billion worth of goods in 2024 compared with $42 billion in imports, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Trump said that "the way Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace. The trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY." Trump also noted "Brazil's insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the Fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans." Three days later, Trump posted on Truth Social a letter sent to Bolsonaro about his "terrible treatment you are receiving at the hands of an unjust system turned against you," demanding an immediate trial. "It is my sincere hope that the Government of Brazil changes course, stops attacking political opponents, and ends their ridiculous censorship regime. I will be watching closely."
