GEORGE V MAGAZINE
|
Neubauer Artists LLC Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
Complaint against the DAO of the National Police: the replacement of Óscar San Juan is not understood as just a change of names, but as the first response of the Interior Ministry to a document that describes an alleged chain of pressures, calls and offers to stop a complaint that has exploded at the top of the police force.
This article details exactly what the complaint alleges (dates, events, evidence presented as audio recordings and records), what role it attributes to the removed advisor, and why the case opens a double front: the criminal front, awaiting the court’s decision, and the institutional front, with a forced restructuring to safeguard the credibility of the Ministry of the Interior and the National Police.
A change at the top and a “confidential investigation” underway
The dismissal of Óscar San Juan is not a minor move within the police hierarchy: the Ministry of the Interior removed him after the complaint against the Deputy Director of Operations (DAO) included an incident that the complainant interpreted as pressure to avoid filing a complaint through offers of job positions. (All of this, according to the court document accessed by George V Magazine).
Fernando Grande-Marlaska framed the decision as necessary to act as soon as the full content of the complaint was known, while simultaneously launching an internal review to clarify what happened and what information existed within the command’s circle. On an administrative level, this “classified information” acts as a firewall: it attempts to establish accountability and protect the operational capacity of the force while the court takes action.
The institutional sequence, therefore, unfolds along two tracks: the judicial one, with proceedings and summonses; and the internal one, with audits and personnel decisions.
The crisis of confidence centers on one question: if an advisor to the DAO could always act, according to the complainant, as a channel for “managing” silence, who else knew what and when?
What crimes does the complaint allege, and why does rank matter?
The complaint alleges, prima facie, the existence of crimes of sexual assault with penetration, coercion, psychological harm, and embezzlement, with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of power. The central focus of the case is not only what happened on a specific day but also the position of authority that, according to the document, limited the complainant’s ability to refuse, end the relationship, and report the crimes.
From a legal standpoint, the text emphasizes that the defendant held the position of Deputy Director of Operations (DAO) , the highest-ranking uniformed officer, and that this hierarchy impacts the professional life of any officer. This asymmetry is used to explain the fear of reprisals and the difficulty in standing up to certain demands.
The complaint also incorporates an institutional dimension: it describes the alleged misuse of resources assigned to the position (vehicle, driver, telephones, and official residence) in a context unrelated to official duties. If this theory is successful during the investigation, the case will cease to be solely a criminal matter: it will also bring into focus the internal control of public resources at the highest levels of the police force.
On April 23, according to the document: from the official vehicle to the DAO’s residence
The key date mentioned in the complaint is April 23, 2025. The complainant states that, while on duty, she received calls to appear “immediately” and that she traveled in an unmarked official vehicle to a restaurant where the defendant was eating with Commissioner Óscar San Juan.
The document states that, at the end of the meeting, the defendant told San Juan to leave with his driver and ordered the complainant to take him to his official residence . The complaint adds that, once in the vehicle stopped in front of the building, the complainant refused to get in for an estimated 15 to 20 minutes, and that the defendant insisted until she agreed “to talk.”
The prosecution focuses on the crucial aspect of this transition: a transfer using public funds to a location the complaint identifies as an official residence associated with the position. From there, the narrative delves into the core of the criminal proceedings, with a description of non-consensual sexual acts that the complaint characterizes as sexual assault with penetration.
Following the reported incident: calls, messages, and a pattern of persistent contact
The complaint is not limited to the alleged incident of April 23. It describes, from that very night, a pattern of unwanted contact: repeated calls within a short period and WhatsApp messages with a accusatory and blaming tone. Among the phrases attributed to the defendant is ” He has crossed a red line ,” written by the complainant when she refused to continue talking.
The text adds that the defendant allegedly used multiple devices , including the official office phone, to circumvent blocking and maintain contact. It also details specific calls made in May (20, 21, and 22), and a conversation on May 22 that the complaint describes as intimidating, containing what the plaintiffs consider veiled threats.
In terms of evidence, the complaint maintains that verifiable operator-specific lists exist and that the terminal would be made available to the court. The procedural intention is clear: to transform the “contact pattern” into digital traceability that is measurable, date-coded, and verifiable during the investigation.
The advisor’s intervention: “choose which destination” and the announced audio
The name of Óscar San Juan appears in the document in a particularly sensitive section: July 2025. The complaint alleges that the complainant received five calls from San Juan’s personal phone on July 7, which she did not answer, and that on July 13 they had a telephone conversation.
According to the complaint, in that conversation San Juan suggested that she “ choose which destination/job position she wants and send it to him via WhatsApp when she has decided.” The document states that, when the complainant refused and threatened legal consequences, San Juan responded that he “doesn’t know what” she was talking about and that he was only calling to find out her interests, adding: “ You’re calling me because he told you to call me .”
The lawsuit includes a piece of evidence intended to protect the prosecution of this incident: it announces that the full audio recording of the conversation will be submitted “as fundamental documentary evidence” when the court determines the appropriate time for comparison. For the prosecution, this part of the account is interpreted as an attempt at coercion through “employment compensation” in exchange for silence, a point that explains the impact of the dismissal and the internal investigation within the Ministry of the Interior.
Public resources under suspicion: vehicle, telephones and official residence
The allegation of embezzlement , according to the document, rests on the use of resources and assets assigned to the official position for private purposes: official vehicle, driver, advisor, and official residence. The complaint frames this as “temporary private use” of public assets, a concept that in criminal proceedings requires specifying precisely what was used, for what purpose, and under what decisions.
At this point, the account introduces a sensitive issue for the institution: it is not limited to an alleged abuse of interpersonal power, but rather presents a scenario in which the position would have facilitated logistical support and cover-up. The mention of official office phone numbers to insist on contact is, from an evidentiary standpoint, one of the most verifiable elements should the court require records or expert reports.
The reputational damage is immediate: if the proceedings move forward, the Ministry of the Interior will have to explain, with documentation, not statements, what controls existed and how they were activated. The scandal would not only involve the reported violations , but also the potential lack of internal safeguards at the highest operational levels.
From psychological assistance to medical leave
The lawsuit includes a timeline of medical and support services to substantiate the psychological harm. It places the complainant’s first contact with the Violence Prevention Center in Rivas Vaciamadrid on June 2, 2025, and describes a deterioration that led to psychosocial support and, ultimately, medical leave.
The text adds that on July 24, 2025, upon starting at a new post, the complainant reported that she was unable to work due to mental health reasons and was referred to the psychosocial support team. It then establishes July 28, 2025, as the date of her medical leave due to temporary incapacity associated with anxiety and depressive symptoms.
This section serves a procedural function: connecting facts, consequences, and documentation. Therefore, the complaint includes medical reports, psychological reports, and clinical documentation which, if admitted by the court, will provide objective support for the charge of psychological harm that the plaintiff also alleges.
What he is asking the court for: testimony from San Juan and a computer expert report
In the section on proceedings , the complaint requests a series of actions: questioning of the defendant, ratification of the plaintiff, health document requests and, expressly, the testimonial evidence of Óscar San Juan as advisor to the DAO.
The document also anticipates a common scenario in cases involving digital evidence: challenges to its authenticity. Therefore, it requests a forensic examination of digital records in cases of dispute regarding calls, messages, and audio recordings, with the appointment of specialists for comparison and forensic analysis, in order to guarantee the validity of the evidence and rule out manipulation.
In practice, this section anticipates the procedural battle: what is submitted, when it is submitted, and how it is certified. If the court accepts these proceedings, the case will move forward quickly: dated evidence , technical comparisons, and depositions in court.
Consent, coercion and embezzlement
Sexual assault and consent: the complaint frames the events under articles 178 and 179 of the Penal Code and maintains that there was digital penetration without consent. The key concept for the reader is simple: if there is no free consent, there is no “gray area”; there is a fact that the court must investigate, with guarantees for all parties.
Coercion : The document alleges that there was continuous intimidation to prevent the complainant from exercising a lawful right, namely filing a complaint. Here, the debate usually centers on intensity, repetition, and purpose: a mere unpleasant conversation is insufficient; it is necessary to demonstrate sufficient pressure to overcome the complainant’s will.
Embezzlement : the text invokes the concept of the temporary private use of public assets (housing, vehicle, driver, advisor). In practical terms, the investigation will have to separate the rhetorical from the verifiable: what means were used, under what orders and at what times, and whether there is sufficient documentary evidence to support the criminal charge.
March 17 as a pivotal date
The political fallout is unavoidable: the Interior Ministry has had to react in real time, replacing the advisor and issuing a public explanation from the minister. Meanwhile, the case has become a political football, risking the distortion of a process that must proceed with due process.
The next milestone is legal: the summons for March 17, the date set for key statements, establishes a timeline that dictates everything else. Following that appearance, the court will decide which proceedings to initiate, what evidence to incorporate, and with what priority.
Until then, the situation is one of transition: the Interior Ministry is trying to safeguard its operational capacity and institutional prestige, while the case prepares for a phase in which traceability (calls, messages, audio recordings) and testimonies will be crucial. What comes next will depend on what the court deems plausible and verifiable, piece by piece.
About The Author
