Martín resigns after being left out of the PSOE lists, with the Vox lawsuit over Sol and the controversy of Bancal de Rosas

The investigation is currently, according to the information published by El Confidencial on October 20, in the instruction phase under secrecy: the facts are being verified, not yet preparing a trial. The inquiries into the contributions to Pedro Sánchez's 2017 primaries, including those channeled through Bancal de Rosas, are framed in a separate case concerning alleged illegal financing of the PSOE. There is no public formal indictment of the association nor a resolution declaring its financing illegal.

Procedural status and scope of the investigation

The cited information places the case before the Central Instruction Court led by Ismael Moreno and dates its opening to December 2025. The secrecy implies that the entirety of the proceedings and the examined documentation are not publicly known. Therefore, a distinction must be made between what has been published about the investigations and the judicial decisions that can be publicly verified.

The central known fact is the request to the Court of Auditors for the list of donors of the candidacy. The Central Operative Unit of the Civil Guard, UCO, must verify whether those individuals made the attributed contributions and check the origin of the money. The next relevant milestone is their report to the instructor; there is no public record, in the consulted sources, of a resolution closing that verification.

This does not equate to a confirmed autonomous case against Francisco Martín for Bancal de Rosas. Demócrata, on October 27, explicitly states that there is no confirmed new judicial case against him regarding this matter and differentiates political suspicions from an accredited personal investigation or indictment. Both pieces of information are compatible: investigating certain contributions does not automatically attribute a crime to those who managed the association.

Pending actions

It is advisable to separate the verifications described by the journalistic information from the steps that would only occur if the judge deems them necessary:

• Complete the verification of contributions. Verify the identity of donors, amounts, and bank movements, and determine the source of the funds. Possible fictitious identities, intermediaries, or split contributions are matters to verify, not irregularities already proven.
• Submit and evaluate the UCO report. The instructor must examine the police conclusions along with the gathered documentation. This report will be relevant to decide if there are criminal indications and if further proceedings are necessary.
• Conduct, if applicable, statements or other verifications. These could affect donors or those responsible for fundraising, but there is no public record of a judicial summons schedule for this matter. They should not be presented as already agreed appearances.
• Decide on the continuation of the procedure. Based on the results, the judge will have to decide whether to archive, expand the inquiries, or continue the procedure with specific responsibility assignments. A possible opening of oral trial would be subsequent and conditional; this is not the current known situation.

Parliamentary matters do not replace judicial ones

The 2025 appearances in the Senate belong to another sphere. The Chamber confirmed the intervention of former treasurer Pedro Luis Egea on November 20, 2025. According to Demócrata's report, he defended the legality of the system, estimated the fundraising at approximately 128,000 euros, and denied transfers to the PSOE. These are statements from the witness, not judicial conclusions.

In short, the matter is in verification of donors and money traceability, pending the police results and the instructor's evaluation. There is no known trial date nor a public schedule to conclude the investigations.

The Government delegate in the Community of Madrid represents the Government of Spain in that territory and directs the General State Administration deployed there. Their central function is to coordinate state action and its relationship with the autonomous and local administrations. They do not direct the autonomous government nor are they hierarchically superior to the president of the Community or the mayors.

1. Legal basis and institutional position

The figure is provided for in Article 154 of the Constitution: they direct the State Administration in the autonomous community and coordinate it, when appropriate, with the autonomous administration. Their competencies are mainly developed in Articles 72 and 73 of Law 40/2015, on the Legal Regime of the Public Sector. They are appointed and removed by royal decree of the Council of Ministers, at the proposal of the president of the Government.

2. Direction and coordination of state services

They direct and supervise the services of the General State Administration and its public bodies present in the territory, with limits derived from their functional dependence on the corresponding ministries. Specifically, they may:

• Promote and coordinate their activity, seeking coherent action of state services.
• Inform about certain appointments of territorial managers and submit proposals to improve organization and administrative functioning.
• Request information about the activity of state services and evaluate the fulfillment of objectives and public policies.
• Resolve administrative appeals and exercise sanctioning powers or others when a norm expressly attributes such competence.

3. Citizen security and fundamental rights

One of their most visible responsibilities is protecting the free exercise of rights and freedoms and guaranteeing citizen security. To this end, they exercise the leadership of the State Security Forces and Corps in the territory, under the functional dependence of the Ministry of the Interior.

This includes coordination of the National Police and Civil Guard and cooperation with other administrations in security matters. Organic Law 4/2015 grants them sanctioning powers. In meetings and demonstrations, the governmental authority may adopt legally provided decisions, but there is no discretionary power to prohibit protests: any limitation must have legal basis, be motivated, and respect judicial control.

4. Relations with the Community and municipalities

They must maintain cooperation and coordination relations with the Community of Madrid and local entities, facilitate information exchange, and participate in corresponding collaboration mechanisms. They also communicate to these administrations information about state financing programs and promote institutional collaboration.

Coordination does not mean command. They cannot substitute autonomous decisions on health, education, or social services, nor direct local police as if they were state forces.

5. Other attributions and limits

They also intervene, according to sectoral legislation, in matters such as immigration, civil protection, and emergencies. They may coordinate state resources, exercise functions related to authorizations or procedures, and collaborate in risk situations. The specific competence depends on each norm: not all decisions are personally adopted by the delegate.

Likewise, they ensure compliance with state competencies and may promote legal mechanisms to defend legality against actions by other administrations, without being able to unilaterally annul them.

In summary, the delegate represents, directs, and coordinates the State's territorial action, but does not govern the autonomous community. Any decision affecting citizens or other administrations requires legal competence, procedure, and possibility of judicial control.

Yes, a party can raise funds through crowdfunding during primaries, but it must comply with the general rules on donations to political parties. The platform does not create an exception: Article 4.Two.h of Organic Law 8/2007 expressly applies the donation requirements to "participatory financing mechanisms."

Internal primaries are not, by themselves, elections subject to the LOREG. Therefore, financing of that internal activity must be distinguished from that intended for an official electoral campaign.

1. Identified donors and permitted funds

According to Articles 4 and 5 of the Law on party financing, in the wording introduced by the 2015 reform, these conditions must be respected:

• Natural persons: donations from legal entities and entities without legal personality are prohibited. The prohibition also covers indirect reception.
• No anonymity: the date, amount, name, and tax identification of the donor must be recorded. A visible alias on the platform does not replace these data.
• No prohibited conditions: donations must be nominative, non-finalistic, and irrevocable, and destined to the party's own activities. Announcing fundraising for primaries does not allow ignoring the prohibition of finalistic donations.
• No individual contractors: donations from natural persons who, in their economic or professional activity, are part of a current public contract cannot be accepted.

2. Limit per person and notification

Article 5 prohibits receiving donations exceeding 50,000 euros annually from the same person. The limit applies to the total donations to the party, not to each payment or platform: splitting them into small amounts does not allow exceeding it.

Additionally, each donation exceeding 25,000 euros must be notified to the Court of Auditors within three months following its acceptance. This procedure does not replace the obligation to account for the rest of the income.

3. Exclusive account and traceability

Amounts must be paid into credit institution accounts intended exclusively to receive donations. The party must communicate which accounts these are to the corresponding credit institutions and to the Court of Auditors.

The platform must allow attributing each payment to its donor and keep their receipts. Publishing only the total raised is not enough. As a practical measure, it is advisable to reconcile contributions with bank income, commissions, refunds, and expenses, without confusing this operational recommendation with a specific technological requirement imposed by law.

4. Refunds and control

If a person exceeds the annual limit, the excess must be refunded. When this is not possible, it must be deposited in the Treasury within three months following the end of the fiscal year. The same period applies to depositing donations whose donor could not be identified exceptionally.

Party income and expenses must be documented and accounted for auditing. Donations cannot be replaced by third parties directly paying party expenses: Article 4.Three prohibits these from effectively assuming their costs.

5. Particularity of primaries

The statutes and primary regulations must also be complied with. If an internal candidacy raises funds instead of the party, it is essential to determine who legally receives the funds and how their economic activity is integrated.

The 10,000 euro limit of Article 129 of the LOREG should not be automatically applied to primaries: it corresponds to contributions to accounts for official elections. This difference does not eliminate the general obligations of identification, limits, and control.