All the judicial matters of Isabel Díaz Ayuso

nijhumnishita03

The cases of corruption that have devastated the Popular Party of Madrid, as well as some of its own clumsiness, took down two presidents of the Community of Madrid in just under three years . Ignacio González , who presided over the CAM between September 26, 2012 and June 24, 2015, ended up in prison for his involvement in the Lezo case and Cristina Cifuentes , president between June 25, 2015 and April 25, 2018 and that he resigned after a security video was released in which Cifuentes appeared in a room in a shopping center after an attempted robbery allegedly committed by the then president.

After the presidency of Ángel Garrido , who replaced Cifuentes, and Pedro Rollán , who was interim president for five months, Isabel Díaz Ayuso became president of the Community of Madrid after the elections Phone Number Data of May 26, 2019 thanks to the support of Ciudadanos , since she came second in the scrutiny. From the first moment, Díaz Ayuso has been the object of a strategy based on the judicial hunt against her and attacks of all kinds, the last from her own party, from which she has always emerged victorious. Cristina Cifuentes and Ignacio Gonzalez. (Photo: Bekia) Avalmadrid case Recently arrived at the presidency, she had to face a serious accusation in which several members of her family were also involved.



The Free Association of Lawyers (ALA) and Más Madrid filed complaints against Díaz Ayuso for an alleged crime of confiscation of assets . The president of the CAM had received a donation from her parents in October 2011 but, according to the plaintiffs, that donation was made “to prevent the real estate in question from being the subject of a claim” by the public entity Avalmadrid . that he had granted a loan in February 2011, in the amount of 400,000 euros , to the company Infortécnica, of which his parents , along with other people, were partners . Finally, the Supreme Court, after the Prosecutor's Office requested that the complaints not be admitted for processing, ruled that “in the case there is no evidence of consistent evidence against the person charged at this time.