Former Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero spent nearly three hours before Judge José Luis Calama at the Audiencia Nacional, trying to dispel suspicions about his involvement in the controversial Plus Ultra airline bailout. Zapatero insisted on his integrity, and the government voiced public support for him. Still, the judge questioned his explanations, particularly his consultancy work for relevant analysis.
The case concerns the €53 million in public financing Plus Ultra received during the COVID-19 crisis through the Fondo de Ayuda a la Solvencia de Empresas Estratégicas, administered by the Sociedad Estatal de Participaciones Industriales (SEPI). Spain’s Council of Ministers authorized the financing on 9 March 2021. The mechanism was designed to provide temporary support to strategically impressive companies affected by the pandemic.
The hearing examined whether political intermediation improperly influenced the application and approval process, and whether any funds were linked to alleged influence-peddling or money laundering. The inquiry, led by Judge Calama, remains open, and the allegations have not been finally adjudicated. The case file contains no direct evidence that Zapatero pressured officials or authorities. Calama pressed him for documentation of his consultancy work, asking why there were no written contracts and how annual lump sums were paid without clear records of specific assignments.
Zapatero described his consultancy as informal, offering verbal advice in meetings and producing general reports on political and economic strategy. He said he did not know the final recipients of his work and that his relationship with Julio Martínez Martínez, linked to relevant analysis, rested on longstanding personal trust. Martínez told investigators that he relayed information about Plus Ultra’s financing needs to Zapatero, saying: “I kept the president informed about the company’s needs, or lack of needs.” He also reportedly said he did not know precisely what steps Zapatero took on the company’s behalf. Investigators are examining whether consultancy invoices reflected genuine services or concealed payment for political intermediation.
One basic point of contention was a lunch at Madrid’s Portonovo restaurant in January 2021 and its possible connection to the creation of a Dubai-based company. Investigators are examining whether an overseas structure could have been used to route part of the rescue funds. Zapatero acknowledged knowing Tomás Guerrero Blanco, a businessman with interests in Dubai, but could not confirm whether he attended the meal. The possible Dubai connection remains an investigative line, not an established mechanism for transferring bailout money.
Zapatero also faced questions about his daughters’ company, What the Fav, which received funds from clients of relevant analysis. Martínez reportedly acknowledged that payments of about €3,000 a month continued after the daughters stopped working for his company. He defended the arrangement, but Calama responded skeptically, information from reporting on the testimony. Zapatero defended their work and denied wrongdoing. The judge announced plans to formally charge them and Zapatero’s secretary for their alleged roles in the network under investigation. Those allegations remain subject to the proceedings.
The inquiry also examines allegations that Plus Ultra agreed to payments equivalent to 1% of the expected rescue, or approximately €530,000. The airline’s owner, Julio Martínez Sola, reportedly said the payment was agreed “because of the possibility” that Zapatero’s connections might help secure the financing. He acknowledged that he could not identify a specific action by Zapatero at SEPI. Investigators are examining whether payments passed through relevant analysis, Voli Analítica SL and IOT Domotic Europe SL, and whether invoices described the services with enough specificity. The reported amount and payment arrangements remain allegations under investigation, not a final judicial finding of criminal payment.
The defense strategy centered on challenging the influence-peddling charge, arguing there is no evidence Zapatero intervened on behalf of Plus Ultra. Legal sources have argued that if this charge fails, related money-laundering allegations may also be affected because they depend on an underlying offense. Reporting on the investigation identifies influence-peddling and falsification of documents among the alleged offenses, with money laundering also under scrutiny. No final conviction or definitive finding of unlawful influence has been reported.
Judge Calama also raised concerns about another client, Inteligencia Prospectiva, a Venezuelan-owned company with no staff or physical office that transferred impressive sums to Zapatero's family. Zapatero said he had cut ties with its owners after their indictment and insisted he was involved only in legitimate consultancy work.
Zapatero agreed to review his calendar to clarify whether he attended the Portonovo lunch. He also agreed to provide documentation for jewelry worth €1.3 million found in his office, which has led to further charges. The investigation continues to examine financial flows and consultancy contracts, including the nature of Zapatero’s business activities, alongside the alleged payment network and possible overseas structures.
The Plus Ultra bailout has stirred political controversy in Spain, raising questions about the criteria for state aid and oversight of public funds. SEPI administered the rescue through its strategic-solvency support mechanism, while the court examines whether the application and approval process involved improper political intermediation. Plus Ultra is reportedly seeking a buyer as it faces financial pressure and continued judicial scrutiny. The company’s future ownership and the legal status of those under investigation remain unresolved.
