When the lawyer says “enough”: why a lawyer can leave the defense of his client (and vice versa) (and what this has to do with the Ábalos case).
November 11, 2025
In the media whirlwind surrounding the personal and political life of the president of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, a simplistic and potentially damaging narrative has emerged with which I do not agree at all (nor can any lawyer) and therefore I want to clarify it: the labeling of her sentimental partner, Alberto González Amador, as a"confessed criminal". This label, repeated in sensationalist headlines and television debates, ignores the nuances of Spanish criminal law and reduces an ongoing judicial process to a summary judgment of guilt, since, far from being an unequivocal confession, Gonzalez Amador's actions are part of a legitimate procedural strategy: the search for an agreement with the Prosecutor's Office.
This article examines, from a rigorous legal perspective, why this distinction is not a mere technicality, but a fundamental guarantee of the rule of law.
Confession and the concept of "confessed offender" in the Spanish legal system
The term"confessed offender" evokes images of a defendant who, before a judge or competent authority, spontaneously acknowledges the criminal acts, assuming full responsibility without coercion or incentives.
In the Spanish Criminal Code (CC), this figure is included in Article 21.4, which provides for a mitigating circumstance for confession: "The guilty party, before knowing that proceedings are being brought against him, has confessed the offense to the authorities". However, this mitigating circumstance requires a voluntary and complete admission, made at the appropriate procedural moment, and is not equivalent to an automatic conviction.
On the other hand, the Criminal Procedure Law and constitutional and ordinary jurisprudence establish that the confession must be free, voluntary and obtained without violation of rights, and that its evidentiary effectiveness depends on its corroboration and the absence of coercion.
Thus, the legal regime of the confession in Spanish criminal proceedings is characterized by a guaranteeing approach: the confession made by the accused in the investigation phase (investigation) does not exempt the judge from investigating and corroborating its veracity by means of other proceedings and evidence.
Article 406 of the Criminal Procedure Law provides that the confession of the defendant does not release the investigating judge from the obligation to take all the necessary steps to be convinced of the truthfulness of the confession and the existence of the crime. For this reason, the judge must interrogate the confessed defendant to explain the circumstances of the crime and any other aspect that may help to prove his confession, including his role as perpetrator or accomplice and the identification of possible witnesses or persons who knew of the crime.
This legal provision implies that the confession does not have an absolute or automatic probative value, but must be evaluated in the context of the totality of the evidence practiced in the process. The legislator demands from the judge an active attitude of investigation and verification, preventing the confession from becoming a shortcut to conviction without due evidentiary contrast.
The confession is not full or sufficient evidence by itself to convict; its value depends on its obtaining in accordance with due process and its contrast with other evidence. Furthermore, confessions obtained under duress, ill-treatment or without due process are null and void and cannot be considered as evidence, in accordance with the doctrine of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights.
In summary: In order to be effective, the confession must be given voluntarily (free of coercion, threats, torture...) before a judge and in a trial with all the guarantees (legal assistance...), with the result that, if a person confesses an offense before the police or the investigating judge and then recants at trial and there is no other evidence to corroborate guilt, he or she may be acquitted.
Procedural conformity: An instrument of efficiency, not of submission
Articles 655 et seq. of the Criminal Procedure Act (LECrim) regulate procedural agreements, inspired by Anglo-Saxon models of plea bargaining, but adapted to the Spanish accusatory system. These mechanisms allow the defendant and the Public Prosecutor's Office to explore extrajudicial or abbreviated solutions, always under judicial control. The key lies in the fact that plea bargaining is a preliminary process, not a conclusive admission of the facts, and therefore does not imply a waiver of the presumption of innocence or prejudge guilt.
The"conformity" or agreement with the Prosecutor's Office, is a pillar of modern criminal justice that allows to resolve cases quickly, reducing the burden on the courts and saving public resources and avoiding in many cases the "victimization" of the injured parties, since they do not have to go through the ordeal of remembering the facts in court. In tax crimes such as those charged against González Amador -allegedly defrauding the Treasury of more than one million Euros, according to press reports-, this figure is especially useful, given the high degree of accounting technicality involved.
It has become such an important part of the criminal process that the reform of the Criminal Procedure Law by Organic Law 1/2025, which came into force on April 3, introduces a preliminary hearing in the trial (art 785 LECrim) attended only by the Prosecutor, the lawyers and the accused, which provides for the possibility of reaching an agreement of conformity, which, if reached, would no longer continue the proceedings.
The procedure is strict: the defendant (or the prosecutor) proposes an agreement that includes the acceptance of facts, the proposed penalty and, where appropriate, the payment of compensation owed. Normally the agreement involves a reduction of the penalty in exchange for the acknowledgment. However, this agreement requires:
- Acceptance of all parties, including prosecution, accusations (public and private) and defense.
- Ratification before the judicial authority: The judge verifies the legality of the agreement and the correctness of the qualification, as well as that there is no coercion against the accused and that the accused understands the implications. The facts agreed with the accusations are acknowledged in a conformity hearing that replaces the oral trial. And the judge pronounces sentence immediately without the need for further proceedings or the evidence is drastically reduced, thus shortening the trial.
- Possibility of retraction: Up to the moment of the statement at the oral trial, the accused may withdraw, which would leave the agreement without effect and the trial would continue.
Thus we see that the mere attempt to negotiate with the Prosecutor's Office does not constitute a confession because the agreement has not been acknowledged before any judge.
In short, calling someone a "confessor" for negotiating with the accusations is tantamount to confusing defensive strategy with unconditional surrender, an error that violates the principles governing criminal proceedings, especially the right to due process.
The specific case
Alberto González Amador, is under investigation for alleged crimes against the Public Treasury (arts. 305 and subsequent articles. CP), allegedly derived from irregular invoices in his companies. The Tax Agency detected irregularities amounting to more than one million euros, which triggered the intervention of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office.
Reports indicate that his defense began talks with the Prosecutor's Office for a possible agreement: full reimbursement of the amount defrauded, plus a fine, in exchange for a reduced sentence (perhaps a suspended sentence, given the amount involved). This approach is standard in tax cases, where 70% of the proceedings are resolved by agreement, according to data from the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ, report 2024). To this end, between Mr. Gonzalez's lawyer and the prosecutor in charge of the case, the famous emails were exchanged, which were leaked and gave rise to the "attorney general" case.
As of the date of writing of this article, there has been no judicial ratification of the agreement, nor formal admission of the facts. Therefore, to speak of a "confession" is premature and erroneous. It is comparable to asserting that a defendant is guilty for hiring a lawyer: a mere defensive tactic aimed at minimizing risks, not a declaration of guilt.
The case we are studying illustrates the dangers of media judicialization in Spain. Negotiating with the Prosecutor's Office is not surrendering or acknowledging guilt, but a procedural right that balances efficiency and guarantees. Calling the person who tries to make a deal a "confessed criminal" not only distorts the public debate, but also erodes the presumption of innocence, a pillar of the accusatory system.
As the proceedings progress - with possible evidentiary proceedings, oral trial or, indeed, a settlement - Mr. González Amador, like any citizen, deserves that his entourage not be lynched by misinterpreted technicalities. In a state governed by the rule of law, negotiation is a bridge to resolution, not a chain of guilt.
