A new round of controversy is brewing in Spain over the Koldo case, after the National Court (Audiencia Nacional) decided to look into possible cash payments to former minister José Luis Ábalos and his ex-aide Koldo García. The Socialist Party (PSOE) has strongly protested this move, stating that there is no basis for new suspicions and calling the court’s actions unfounded.
In an official statement to Judge Ismael Moreno, party representatives expressed their disagreement with the investigation expanding without clear evidence of a crime or specific suspects. According to the Socialists, the push to check possible cash payments arose solely due to opposition pressure, not because of any concrete facts.
The PSOE stresses that it has never operated unofficial financial schemes and has always provided all required information to the court upon request. The party maintains its accounting is transparent and that any payments to staff were made officially and backed by supporting documents. Party officials also deny accusations of off-the-books payments or unreported compensation.
The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office has supported the party’s position, noting that neither the PSOE nor its leaders are suspects in the case. The prosecutors believe the party’s status as a private prosecutor in the process should be maintained, as there is no reason to exclude it from the proceedings.
Party insiders note that the new suspicions are based on assumptions rather than facts. There is particular discontent about the use of testimony from businesswoman Carmen Pano, which, according to the socialists, is not supported by any evidence. Previously, the court had already rejected a similar complaint from the opposition regarding the party’s funding.
In conclusion, PSOE insists on the transparency and legality of all its financial operations, viewing the new accusations as an attempt to undermine the party amid the ongoing Caso Koldo investigation. The socialists are confident they will prove their innocence and are counting on the court’s objectivity.
