Madrid judge facing corruption probe

The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) is investigating a Madrid judge, Coro Cillán, and has opened disciplinary proceedings on charges of serious breaches of conduct in relation with a business named Moma 56.

Among allegations against Cillán is that she took decisions constituting favorable treatment to friends in the administration of Moma 56, which comprises a nightclub, a restaurant and a banquet hall. Prosecutors are investigating whether Cillán's conduct in the Madrid Circuit Court number 43 constitutes corruption. Cillán stands accused of holding a series of extrajudicial meetings with one of the parties in a lawsuit between shareholders in the firm that had previously been shelved by Madrid court number 38. Cillán denies the claims.

The incident described by the CGPJ inspectorate occurred last September 21 when Cillán was on duty. She was presented with a complaint for "disloyal administration" of on the part of Alberto Vos, representing Moma 56, against the then-administrator of the firm, Fernando Robes Ibarra. Vos claimed he had found new evidence and asked that the nightclub and the offices belonging to Moma 56 be sealed off as he believed Robes was destroying evidence.

The on-duty attorney opposed the order but Cillán ignored the request and "without the presence of the accused party, ordered the closure." Robes' lawyer appealed to Cillán to revoke the order, stating that the matter had already been dealt with by court 38. Duty judges are allowed to take preventive measures but must then submit the matter to a senior judge. Cillán did not. According to one of her secretaries, the judge hid certain case files. Cillán denies this. After ordering the closure, Cillán named a "personal friend," Pedro Rodríguez Fernández, as judicial administrator on a monthly salary of 18,000 euros.

Days later, she named Javier Caballero Dotres as administrator, on a wage of 2,500 euros per month. The inspectorate describes Dotres as a "friend or intimate friend" of Cillán, adding that the judge's handling of the case had been "anomalous." In its report, it also stated that the judicial secretary of court 43, as well as attorneys attached to it, said that "the behavior of the judge may have been on occasion influenced by the ingestion of alcoholic beverages."