Former Prime Minister Zapatero faced tough scrutiny in the National Court over his role in the Plus Ultra bailout. The judge remained unconvinced by his explanations, highlighting gaps in his consultancy activities.
Former Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero spent nearly three hours before Judge José Luis Calama at the Audiencia Nacional, attempting to dispel suspicions about his involvement in the controversial Plus Ultra airline bailout. Despite Zapatero's insistence on his integrity and the public support voiced by the government, the judge found his explanations lacking, especially regarding his consultancy work for Análisis Relevante.
The hearing focused on whether Zapatero had improperly influenced the €53 million state rescue of Plus Ultra. According to the case file, there is no direct evidence that Zapatero pressured officials or authorities. However, Judge Calama repeatedly pressed him on the lack of documentation for his consultancy activities, the absence of written contracts, and the unusual payment structure, which involved annual lump sums and no clear records of specific assignments.
Zapatero described his consultancy as informal, often involving verbal advice, meetings, or general reports on political and economic strategy. He maintained that he did not know the final recipients of his work and that his relationship with Julio Martínez Martínez, owner of Análisis Relevante, was based on longstanding personal trust. The judge, however, questioned the legitimacy of such arrangements, noting that the company had no employees and that similar setups are often used to mask fraudulent activities.
One key point of contention was a lunch at the Portonovo restaurant in Madrid in January 2021, which the judge suspects may have been linked to the creation of a company in Dubai intended to channel part of the bailout funds. While Zapatero admitted knowing Tomás Guerrero Blanco, a businessman with interests in Dubai, he could not confirm whether he attended the meal in question. The judge found this lack of recall suspicious, especially given the context of the investigation.
Zapatero also faced questions about his daughters' company, Whathefav, which received funds from clients of Análisis Relevante. He defended their work and denied any wrongdoing, but the judge announced plans to formally charge them and Zapatero's secretary for their alleged roles in the network under investigation.
The defense strategy centered on undermining the charge of influence peddling, arguing that there is no evidence of Zapatero intervening on behalf of Plus Ultra. Legal sources note that if this charge collapses, the related money laundering allegations may also fall, as they depend on the existence of a prior offense.
Judge Calama also raised concerns about another client, Inteligencia Prospectiva, a Venezuelan-owned company with no staff or physical office, which transferred significant sums to Zapatero's family. Zapatero claimed to have cut ties with its owners after their indictment and insisted he was only involved in legitimate consultancy work.
In addition to reviewing his calendar to clarify his presence at the Portonovo lunch, Zapatero agreed to provide documentation for jewelry worth €1.3 million found in his office, which has led to further charges. The investigation continues to focus on these unresolved issues, with the court seeking clarity on both the financial flows and the true nature of Zapatero's consultancy activities.
For context, the Plus Ultra bailout has been a source of political controversy in Spain, raising questions about the criteria for state aid and the oversight of public funds. The case highlights the challenges of distinguishing legitimate consultancy from potential influence peddling, especially when high-profile figures and complex international transactions are involved. The outcome may have broader implications for how similar cases are handled in the future.
