José Luis Ábalos, the former minister, is back in the spotlight after another session at Spain’s Supreme Court. This time, he exercised his right to remain silent, explaining that he was left without legal representation after breaking with his previous lawyer and a new attorney had not been appointed by the court. This move sparked discontent among his opponents, who called for his immediate detention.
Despite the prosecution’s demands, the judge decided not to change the previously imposed restrictions. Ábalos is still banned from leaving the country, his passport has been confiscated, and he is required to check in with the court every two weeks. The Prosecutor’s Office determined there were no grounds for arrest, but opposition representatives insisted on either his pre-trial detention or an extremely high bail.
In a nine-page ruling, the judge noted that suspicions about the former minister have only grown. Particular attention was drawn to large sums of cash deposited into his accounts, despite no official records of withdrawals from his bank cards. Investigators believe Ábalos and his former aide Koldo García may have used opaque schemes to conceal income and assets.
Nevertheless, the court did not find sufficient grounds for immediate arrest. According to the judge, the risk of flight exists but is currently contained by existing restrictions. At the same time, the judge did not rule out that in the future, as the trial approaches and new evidence emerges, the measures could be tightened. Special attention was drawn to the fact that Ábalos still retains his parliamentary seat despite the seriousness of the accusations.
Investigators suspect that Koldo García may have covered Ábalos’s personal expenses, including rent in Marbella, travel, and gifts, using funds of questionable origin. Ábalos himself chose not to answer questions, citing lack of defense. His lawyers claim that the arrest demands are politically motivated. As early as the next day, Koldo García is expected to be questioned in court. His defense insists the case should be dismissed due to procedural violations.
