The judge allows the Tax Agency to exercise the accusation in the case of masks despite the rejection of Medina and the Prosecutor’s Office

The judge in the mask case, Adolfo Carretero, has admitted the appearance of the Tax Agency as an accusation in the mask case despite the opposition of the accused Luis Medina and the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, who did not believe that the Public Treasury was legitimate to appear as harmed before a possible crime of theft from execution.

Beyond the legal discrepancies, the presence of the Tax Agency supposes a confrontation between the State Attorney, representative of the Treasury, and Anticorruption. It is one more episode of the attempt by the specialized Prosecutor’s Office to monopolize and monitor the accusation in the mask case since it opened some secret investigative proceedings and prolonged them for 17 months with the sole knowledge of those investigated and the Madrid City Council, to which Anticorrupción refuses to attribute any responsibility.

The commission agent Luis Medina was opposed to the appearance of the Tax Agency because he considered that he intended to undertake a “prospective investigation”. According to him, the accused was the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, who stressed that the only ones affected by the possible crime of raising Medina’s assets are the public funeral company and the Madrid City Council, and not the Public Treasury.

The judge concludes that it is the State Attorney who presents the valid argument by recalling that the reform of the Criminal Code of 2015 considers the crime of frustrating the execution, as well as the seizure of assets, “a punishable insolvency modality”.

“The dispositive acts that Mr. Medina has carried out, to the point of leaving his accounts practically depleted, can harm the enforcement procedure that the AEAT follows against him for these provisions, which means that the AEAT can be harmed for being a debtor of Mr. Medina Abascal, being possible the raising of assets against her in her modality of frustration to the execution”. Judge Carretero’s decision is appealable.