The National Court has archived the case opened against the businessman for the alleged hiring of the retired commissioner José Manuel Villarejo to harass the dermatologist Elisa Pinto, considering that she is not legitimized as a private accusation to target them for a crime of bribery. Neither of them will sit, therefore, in the dock for this separate piece of the Tandem case —which revolves around the allegedly criminal activities of Villarejo— after the fourth section of the Criminal Court has filed the procedure in a court order, to which EFE has had access this Friday and against which there is an appeal.
The decision does not affect another procedure in the Criminal Court number 10 of Madrid to withdraw a complaint for harassment, a case in which the Prosecutor’s Office requests 13 years and two months in prison for them and where the Chamber does see “a real legitimation and evident” of the dermatologist to exercise the private accusation.
In the case now archived, the magistrates have considered the previous question raised by López Madrid’s defense at the beginning of the trial on November 18, which argued that the private accusation exercised by the doctor is not legitimized to accuse him of a crime of bribery. , for which the Prosecutor’s Office, which requested acquittal, is not directed against him.
That day, the National Court suspended the trial at the request of the lawyer because she was on medical leave due to illness, although the court said that, given the difficulty in rescheduling the trial—which could be delayed until May 2026— , had “interest” in resolving the previous issues in advance.
In their order, the magistrates agree with López Madrid regarding the lack of legitimacy of the private accusation to proceed against them for bribery, without the support of the Prosecutor’s Office, and emphasize that there is another procedure in Criminal Court number 10 of Madrid “very similar” to this cause.
They refer to the one who will put the businessman and the retired commissioner on the bench in February 2026 for harassing and threatening Dr. Pinto to withdraw a complaint for harassment, a case in which the Prosecutor’s Office requests 13 years and two months in prison for them and where the Chamber does see “real and evident legitimation” of the dermatologist to exercise the private accusation.
For this reason, the court understands that “the early closure” of the National Court procedure does not render Elisa Pinto defenseless, since acts that may cause “direct and concrete harm” against her will be judged in the other case, while the bribery “has no similar effect” in the private prosecution. And he also mentions, “without the intention of prejudging”, the difficulty that he would have had “in reaching a condemnatory hypothesis” in the procedure of the National Court, in view of the thesis of the Prosecutor’s Office, which decided not to accuse, and “given the important obstacle accrediting some of the essential elements of bribery, such as the payment of the gift.”
In this procedure of the National Court, only Dr. Pinto was the accused, who requested between two and six years in prison for the accused, since the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office requested that this case be filed considering that it had not been verified that López Madrid gave gifts. to Villarejo for this alleged assignment and the perpetration of a crime of bribery was not “duly justified.”
