Juan Carlos Cueto and Íñigo Rotaeche appeared before Judge Ismael Moreno as the National Court nears the end of the Koldo case. They denied any role in irregular commissions or illegal contracts tied to Spain’s pandemic procurement. The two businessmen, both under investigation, testified on September 11, 2026, and denied taking bribes or joining any scheme. They also said they knew nothing of Víctor de Aldama’s connections with former minister Ábalos, Spanish news agencies reported.
The prosecution’s case centers on Aldama, an intermediary already convicted of arranging lucrative pandemic supply deals. The Supreme Court previously found that he paid illegal commissions to José Luis Ábalos, then Minister of Transport, and his advisor Koldo García. Aldama’s prison sentence was suspended, while Ábalos and García received jail terms, confirming a corrupt network at high levels. The investigation also concerns Soluciones de Gestión y Ayuda a Empresas SL, with Rotaeche as its administrator and Cueto as the basic figure behind the company’s mask supply contracts.
The disputed contract for eight million masks was signed several days before the official government order, a timing prosecutors say points to insider knowledge and collusion.
Cueto and Rotaeche maintain that they had no part in Aldama’s activities. Rotaeche, who led Soluciones de Gestión, answered questions for over an hour and insisted that all agreements were legal. Cueto, who financed the purchase of medical supplies later sold to the government, gave a similar account. Both denied knowing about bribes or illegal contracts. They also said they knew nothing of Aldama’s dealings with Ábalos. Their defense, as reported by Spanish legal correspondents, is that the contract date was a clerical error. They say it should have been March 19, 2020, not March 16, a basic point because the prosecution’s argument about insider knowledge depends on this date.
Prosecutors focused on the timing. Four days before the government’s official order for eight million masks, Soluciones de Gestión and Cueto’s group had already signed a contract to supply that exact amount. The Supreme Court previously ruled that the timing was evidence of insider knowledge and collusion. The accused said the contract was misdated and plan to submit expert analysis to support their claim. Major Spanish outlets report that the defense is preparing technical documents to show it was an administrative mistake.
The investigation remains open for those not tried in the Supreme Court, and its outcome could influence how Spain handles future procurement scandals. The defense relies on technical details, while the prosecution points to a pattern of evidence already upheld by the courts. Spain continues to deal with the fallout from pandemic-era contracts, alongside concerns about delays and public trust in the justice system raised by other recent corruption cases.
Recent reports indicate that the Audiencia Nacional is also investigating a separate episode involving a fictitious €15 million contract and its possible connection to PSOE financing, widening the political context of the Koldo case.
The defense’s focus on administrative errors and the lack of direct evidence may delay the process, but does little to restore confidence in public procurement. As the court considers these final testimonies, the basic issue is whether Spain’s legal system can hold all responsible parties to account.
