The Supreme Court will investigate the alleged accounts in the Dominican Republic of Sánchez's ministers.

Last Wednesday, Víctor de Aldama caused a great stir by making some documents public. In them, it was noted that several ministers and leaders of the PSOE had bank accounts in the Dominican Republic.

The complaint, although widely disseminated, was quickly refuted by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office. According to this body, the two submitted documents lacked credibility and were filed due to a lack of solid evidence.

Despite this initial rejection, the case remains of interest. The complaint has been referred by the Senate to the Supreme Court, which has added a new chapter to the conflict.

The document, which reached the commission in charge of the Koldo case, points to several high-ranking officials. The list includes the European Commissioner for Competition, Teresa Ribera, and five ministers of the Spanish Government: María Jesús Montero, Ángel Víctor Torres, Luis Planas, Óscar López, and Pilar Alegría.

Additionally, the document includes two prominent members of the PSOE: Santos Cerdán and Patxi López. This 24-page document contains the accusations that are now in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Although sources within the high court are unaware if they have officially received the document. The protocol stipulates that, being referred by the Senate, it must be reviewed.

The first stage of the process in the Supreme Court will consist of appointing a rapporteur who will be responsible for deciding if the case has grounds to proceed. If deemed necessary, they can request an investigation into the mentioned accounts and possible links to illicit activities.

However, legal experts warn that the likelihood of this case advancing is low. Recent statistics indicate that 97% of the documents that reach the Supreme Court are dismissed.

Several judges of the Supreme Court have pointed out that the complaint lacks solid elements that could justify an in-depth investigation.

The absence of specific details on how the information was obtained. The lack of clear evidence of the commission of a crime are aspects that work against the complaint. Some magistrates consider that the complaint has little credibility.

However, the Supreme Court is legally obliged to process the document, as it comes from a public institution like the Senate.

This means that, although the content is debated, they can't ignore it without incurring a possible serious fault.