The Spanish government has reaffirmed its support for José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero after a judge rejected the prosecutor’s request for precautionary measures, including withdrawing his passport. The decision did not end the investigation: the Audiencia Nacional inquiry continues into the former prime minister’s links to the Plus Ultra case and a separate evidentiary line concerning jewelry found in his Madrid office.
Zapatero was reported to have become formally under investigation on 19 May 2026 over alleged influence peddling connected to the 2021 state rescue of airline Plus Ultra, valued at €53 million. The wider inquiry has included allegations involving criminal organization and money laundering, alongside claims of falsified documents. These remain allegations, not judicial findings of guilt. The judge’s rejection of the requested measures means Zapatero is not subject to the reported passport restriction; it is not a determination on the merits of the case.
Sources within La Moncloa described the absence of judicial restrictions as a relief, while ministers and PSOE officials have maintained their support for Zapatero and the presumption of innocence. The article reports that he has not contradicted himself in testimony and has offered to cooperate, including by authorizing access to foreign accounts.
The jewelry has become a basic evidentiary issue after a court-ordered appraisal reportedly placed its value at more than €1.3 million, above estimates previously attributed to Zapatero’s circle. The items reportedly include jewelry sets, with necklaces and bracelets, as well as earrings and rings. They also include rubies and emeralds, alongside diamonds and watches. A further appraisal by expert Yanes was expected to establish the market value in greater detail.
Zapatero’s reported explanation is that at least some of the pieces were gifts from Saudi Arabia’s former king, Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, during an official visit to Spain in 2007. He has characterized the gift as one of courtesy. The investigation is examining the jewelry’s provenance and ownership, whether the items should have been declared as assets, and whether the goods brought into Spain from outside the European Union required customs declarations or payment of duties and VAT. Those issues are distinct from any allegation that the jewelry could have been connected to other conduct.
Despite pressure to clarify the items’ status, the government has not said whether Zapatero should return them or transfer them to state ownership. The immediate procedural focus remains the appraisal and other investigative steps, rather than a final judicial determination of ownership or guilt. The handling of official gifts can raise questions about disclosure and asset reporting, but the applicable treatment depends on the circumstances of each gift and the rules governing it.
Within the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE), the leadership has publicly upheld the presumption of innocence, with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez backing that position. Sánchez has also argued that government leaders may not always know the precise nature or value of gifts from foreign counterparts. In an appearance on TVE’s La Revuelta, he cited a gold-plated revolver given to NATO leaders by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at a summit in Ankara as an example of how such gifts can be handled. That comparison does not resolve the questions of declaration, ownership or taxation in Zapatero’s case.
The PSOE’s support has coincided with internal debate over whether Zapatero’s participation in campaign events could help or hurt the party. Sánchez had previously indicated that Zapatero would be welcome, while later reporting described uncertainty about whether he would appear and concern among some Socialist officials about the political impact. Sumar, a governing coalition partner, has called for greater transparency and urged Zapatero to address the public directly.
The opposition has made the jewelry’s reported value and its storage in a safe at Zapatero’s office a focus of criticism, including questions about why the items have not been returned. The controversy has created political pressure independent of any final judicial outcome, while the Audiencia Nacional investigation continues. Its eventual findings will determine the legal significance of the jewelry and could shape wider debate about disclosure and accountability for valuable gifts received by senior public officials.
