Alberto González Amador, the partner of the President of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, made headlines on February 24, 2025, after refusing to testify before Judge Immaculada Iglesias relating to serious allegations of tax fraud and document falsification. Arriving at Plaza Castilla under the scrutiny of numerous journalists, González Amador, who was scheduled to address the court, instead opted to exercise his right not to declare.
This legal strategy unfolded amid the backdrop of pending resolutions from the Provincial Court of Madrid concerning separate charges tied to the main case. The allegations against González Amador and four others include significant tax fraud totaling over 350,000 euros, alongside accusations of submitting false invoices to reduce tax liabilities from 2020 and 2021. The Fiscalía de Madrid has reportedly launched investigations after discovering purportedly fictitious expenses, leading to the examination of various companies involved.
When González Amador left the courthouse, he unintentionally collided with the camera of a television journalist as he was approached by the press. This incident, described as non-aggressive by witnesses, nonetheless drew sharp criticism from Ayuso, who claimed the lack of security measures constituted negligence on the part of the authorities overseeing the situation. "I want to blame the Government Delegation, which has not put minimal security measures knowing this is a political trial and there would be so many cameras," Ayuso remarked forcefully.
Initially calm, González Amador reportedly smiled upon arrival but faced the media tumult as they sought comment post-appearance. His attorneys advised the non-declaration citing the unknowns surrounding the legal proceedings’ future. "It’s evident he is the most interested party to see this end, not my political rivals, who are the ones getting involved. This is organized political persecution by the Moncloa with state institutions," Ayuso asserted, insisting on the gravity of the situation her partner faced.
During his brief appearance, which was overshadowed by the accumulation of press attention surrounding Ayuso and her partner, it became the fifth postponement for González Amador’s declaration. These delays raised concerns about the legal proceedings’ direction and the adequacy of protection measures for those involved. Ayuso noted, "It’s unacceptable for someone to face this kind of situation," as the couple is embroiled in allegations intertwining personal and political ramifications.
After the incident, media representatives maintained clarity on the nature of the altercation. "It was not aggression; it was merely an accident," stated Antonio García Ferreras, director of Al Rojo Vivo, reinforcing interpretations from within the media circle. Alfonso Pérez Medina, legal expert at laSexta, corroborated this perspective, explaining, "The camera hit him because it was moving backward and the incident was purely accidental," clarifying the narrative around what transpired.
Throughout the prior year, González Amador had undergone intensive scrutiny, both legally and through public discourse. The Fiscalía initially received reports detailing potential tax irregularities from the Agencia Tributaria, prompting the investigation due to indications of exorbitant non-disclosures during the tax years of concern. The mention of fictitious invoices raised eyebrows, as they implied wrongful intent to diminish tax obligations unjustly.
Despite the turbulence, González Amador’s legal team insisted they would seek clarity from the courts concerning future proceedings before allowing their client to fully engage with the judicial process. Ayuso’s vocal support, underscored by her accusations against political opponents, paints this circumstance as emblematic of broader political divides, showcasing the intersection of personal strife with political narrative.
With the situation still very much fluid, González Amador’s court appearance stands as part of the growing saga surrounding allegations of corruption and mismanagement within political ranks, contributing to calls for transparency at all levels of governance. Both public opinion and media scrutiny will inevitably continue to play significant roles as events develop concerning this controversial case.
Ayuso’s determined rhetoric against perceived political injustices emphasizes the potential ramifications on future electoral dynamics as the story evolves before the public eye. While details surrounding the legal intricacies remain complex, this narrative finds its root embedded within the larger discourse about accountability and political integrity.