The Supreme Court has decided to archive the accusation against the President of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, by the supposed Avalmadrid case, not to appreciate signs of criminal responsibility against the Madrid leader.
In this way, according to the High Court, the criminal room has inadmitted the complaint for offering crime as a crime for the Lawyers and Lawyers (Ala) against Ayuso and other people.
The Association of Lawyers complained about the donation of a floor that Ayuso and his brother received from his parents in 2011 and that, according to the complaint, was carried out to prevent that property from being claimed by Avalmadrid, with which the parents had
A debt for a loan.
According to La Complain, MC Inpertécica SL, Society participated by Diaz Ayuso’s parents and other members, obtained a credit of 400,000 euros from Avalmadrid that was not returned, and the Avalists, all of them complaked, came out of their assets through donations to family members
and third parties
In accordance with the criterion of the Prosecutor’s Office, who asked to inadmit the complaint, the Supreme concludes that “the concurrence of consistent indications against the person aimed at this time is not appreciated.”
“He was not a member of MC Injectéctica; he does not know that he knew his economic and corporate situation; he did not intervene in the credit or endorsement operation; he was not avalista or debtor; he does not know that he knew the debt; and no indication is seen that
Act in connivance with the other complaints to avoid payment of the debt of that society, “Razona the High Court.
Regarding the donation carried out by his parents, he does not find an indication that, on that date, Ayuso knew that MC Injectéctica “was not to comply with the obligations derived from the credit operation, nor that he had difficulties for this or that
, more or less definitively, could not do it in the near future, “adds the file auto.
For this reason, file the actions “without prejudice to what appropriate, if the investigation initiated in relation to the other unreasonable complaints, consistent signs of criminal responsibility against the aforementioned person were.
