Former Generalitat President Carles Puigdemont has filed a complaint for fraud and another crime of embezzlement against Barcelona Judge Joaquín Aguirre, considering it “clear” that the judge “expressed his intention to deceive” by continuing with the investigation into the Russian trial plot despite the order of the Court of Barcelona preventing this. The former president has also requested the provisional suspension of the judge in charge of investigating alleged Kremlin interference in the trial.
The crime for which Puigdemont is filing the complaint is fraud, where those who issue an unjust resolution, knowing that it is unfair, are punished with disqualification sentences of two to six years. Embezzlement can also be punished with a prison sentence of up to eight years. It will be the High Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC), the body for which Aguirre is registered, which, after consulting with the Public Prosecutor's Office, will decide whether to take up the case and have it examined by the magistrate.
According to the former president's defense, Judge Aguirre's resolution last Friday, which continued to investigate the Russian plot, despite the Court's order from Barcelona that prevented this meets the three requirements of judicial fraud: that the author be a judge who issues an “unjust” resolution and (the most difficult thing to prove in cases of judicial fraud) that the magistrate who issued the illegal resolution be fully aware of that injustice.
Puigdemont understands that Aguirre has left several traces of the crime in his last resolution on the Russian plot. That is to say, the judge has incriminated himself in some way. The defense of the former president pays particular attention to the two pages with which the judge devoted himself to justifying why he continued his investigation into the Russian plot, despite the order of the Court of Barcelona, his hierarchical superiors, to close it.
The magistrate admitted that continuing the investigation into the Russian plot was an “alternative solution to the objections” raised by the Barcelona Court, but that he had to do so “for reasons of fairness and justice and of historical importance for the European Union.”
Judge Aguirre also acknowledged that the higher court's order “resulted in a dismissal of the Russian interference for lack of sufficient instruction.” The “alternative solution” the magistrate found was to open a new separate room, different from the one that had been demolished, to investigate the same facts that his superiors had prevented him from investigating.
All this leads Puigdemont to consider it “clear” that the judge “expressed his desire to deviate, to bend the law and not to comply” with what the Barcelona Court imposed on him with one single purpose: “To satisfy his capricious will to save a procedure that was condemned to a free dismissal.”
The complaint against a judge represents a leap never before taken in the process. Despite strongly disagreeing with many resolutions, none of the dozens of people investigated for various events in the sovereignty process had taken the step of filing a complaint against a magistrate. The sentences and orders had been challenged through the usual remedies provided by law. But with Judge Aguirre, everything changed.