The dramatic reduction in the prison term for a defendant in one of Spain’s most high-profile corruption cases of recent years may reshape how similar investigations and verdicts are handled. The court’s decision regarding David Marjaliza came as a surprise to many, since this case affected not only businesses but also politicians and the functioning of Madrid’s municipalities. For the capital’s residents and for the country as a whole, this sends a clear signal: cooperation with the justice system can have a significant impact on sentencing outcomes.
Court ruling
Spain’s Audiencia Nacional has decided to reduce the prison sentence for businessman David Marjaliza, previously convicted for fraudulent dealings with public contracts in several Madrid municipalities. He initially faced eight years and two months in prison, but after review, the term was reduced by more than three years — down to five years and one month. According to El Pais, the judges took into account the defense’s argument that Marjaliza played a key role in exposing the scheme and cooperated extensively with investigators.
Marjaliza was considered one of the key organizers of a scheme linked to Cofely, a company specializing in energy efficiency. After his arrest, he became the first major figure to agree to cooperate with the authorities, providing crucial information for the investigation. This made it possible to advance in uncovering a large-scale corruption network that involved high-ranking officials and politicians, including former members of the Partido Popular of Madrid.
Case details
In December last year, the court delivered a verdict on a case related to manipulations around Cofely contracts. Five former mayors from the Partido Popular, one from the Socialists, and another representative from a local political group were convicted. They faced charges of corruption committed between 2012 and 2014. Marjaliza received the harshest sentence: two years for participation in a criminal organization, one year and eight months for money laundering, and four years and six months for fraud, forgery, and bribery.
However, the defense insisted that the court had not considered all the circumstances related to Marjaliza’s position. Not only did he plead guilty and reach an agreement with the prosecution, but he also actively assisted the investigation over several years by providing new information. The lawyer José Antonio Choclán managed to have the sentence reviewed, and the judges agreed that Marjaliza’s contribution to exposing the scheme was significant.
Consequences for the defendant
In the revised verdict, the sentence for participation in a criminal organization has been reduced to one year and eight months, while the penalty for fraud and related offenses is now one year and nine months. The term for money laundering remains unchanged. As a result, none of the sentences exceed two years, which under Spanish law sometimes allows offenders to avoid serving actual prison time if they have no prior convictions for similar offenses. According to sources close to Marjaliza, who has already spent 14 months in pre-trial detention, a request will be submitted to suspend the execution of the sentence.
The case of Marjaliza resembles other high-profile trials in which the size of legal costs and the approach to punishment have sparked debate. For instance, the Supreme Court recently attracted attention over a ruling ordering nearly €80,000 in costs, triggering a strong reaction and heated discussions—read more about this incident in the article on the controversy over legal expenses in Madrid.
Context and trends
In Spain, corruption cases involving municipalities and politicians are regularly the focus of public debate. In recent years, courts have repeatedly revised sentences, taking into account the defendants’ cooperation with the investigation. In some instances, this has led to significantly reduced prison terms or even suspended sentences. Such decisions are a source of controversy among experts and citizens, as they impact perceptions of justice and public trust in the judicial system.
Recalling other high-profile cases, it is worth noting that in 2025, several corruption trials in the municipalities of Andalucía and Valencia also ended with reduced sentences for those who actively cooperated with investigators. At the same time, courts in Catalonia and Galicia took a tougher stance, refusing to shorten sentences even when confessions were made. These differences in approach highlight that judicial practice in Spain remains uneven and depends on many factors, including public reaction and the stance of the prosecution.
