Publication: Wednesday October 21 2020 10:50
The anti-corruption prosecution asked the judge of the national court Manuel García-Castellón for the file of the Carol part belonging to the Villarejo case in which it is being investigated if Corinna Larsen hired ex-commissioner Villarejo to spy on one of her assistants .
As LaSexta has learned, Anticorrupción agrees with Larsen’s defense that there is no indication of bribery offenses or disclosure of secrets.
In this piece, recorded conversations between Corinna Larsen and former Commissioner Villarejo are studied. In one of them, the German businesswoman talks about the accounts of the King Emeritus and attributes the collection of commissions for the ETA to Mecca.
García-Castellón is investigating a conversation in which Corinna explained to Villarejo her concern about a former Spanish assistant who could sell data about her private life. In those same recordings, Corinna also spoke about the alleged opaque tales of the King Emeritus of Switzerland.
Villarejo sold him his services, explaining that he had the best specialists in the world for this task. In this sense, the judge considers that it is necessary to clarify whether the order has materialized and if money has been paid for it, which could constitute offenses of active and passive corruption in which the investigated for them crimes committed in Spain could have intervened.
It should be remembered that the judge has already ignored the appeal presented by Corinna Larsen and to which the prosecution itself adhered. In that letter, the investigation was fundamentally based on the fact that ex-Commissioner Villarejo was already retired when he made the alleged assignment.
In the order rejecting Larsen’s dismissal, the judge stressed that the prosecution “agrees with the appellants” on at least three points and lists: “Villarejo’s retirement age, the lack of connection between the events which gave rise to held at the Carol play and those which motivated the reopening “.
The prosecution also rallied to Larsen’s defense by alleging the lack of procedural requirement to prosecute both the crime of corruption (because it requires a complaint from the prosecution) and the crime of discovering or revealing secrets ( because there is no complaint from the injured or injured party or complaint from the prosecution).