The investigation into the Plus Ultra bailout now targets the airline's top executives. Prosecutors want them to testify after written claims tied Zapatero to the rescue. The case could impact oversight of public aid in Spain.
The investigation into the Plus Ultra bailout has taken a new turn, with prosecutors now focusing on the airline's leadership after recent statements implicated former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero in the process of securing public funds. The shift comes after Julio Martínez Martínez, a businessman with longstanding ties to Zapatero, submitted a written statement to the National Court suggesting the ex-leader played a role in the airline's rescue. This move has prompted the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office to request testimony from Plus Ultra's president, Julio Martínez Sola, and its chief financial officer, Roberto Roselli, both of whom have now aligned themselves with a strategy of cooperation with the investigation.
Previously, Martínez Sola and Roselli had declined to testify following their arrest by the National Police in December. During a Senate commission hearing months later, Martínez Sola firmly denied any irregularities in the bailout, insisting the process was strictly regulated and free from favoritism. However, in a recent written submission to the court, he acknowledged that the company had engaged Martínez Martínez specifically because of his connection to Zapatero, agreeing to pay significant sums—described as a 1% fee—for what were termed "accompaniment" services aimed at influencing the outcome of the rescue.
For now, Judge José Luis Calama is not expected to schedule new hearings until after the August court recess. The judge still needs to set dates for questioning the president's daughters and his secretary, Gertrudis Alcázar, who are also under investigation. Meanwhile, the conservative group Hazte Oír, acting as a popular prosecution, has announced plans to call several former government officials and members of the SEPI board from 2021, which oversaw the Plus Ultra aid, to testify. Among those named are Pedro Saura, José Luis Escrivá, and María Jesús Montero.
Despite the new developments, prosecutors do not currently see grounds to summon Zapatero for further questioning unless new charges are brought. The former prime minister still faces a separate line of inquiry regarding the origin of jewelry worth €1.3 million seized from his office by the National Police's Economic and Fiscal Crime Unit (UDEF). This led to additional charges of smuggling and tax offenses. In his last court appearance on June 17, Zapatero exercised his right not to answer questions about the jewelry, instead requesting more time through his legal team to clarify its provenance.
After his initial court appearance a month ago, Zapatero publicly defended his conduct, stating he had always acted with integrity and would prove his innocence. At that time, neither Martínez Martínez nor the Plus Ultra leadership had shifted their defense to implicate the former prime minister. Since their recent statements, Zapatero has not made any public comment on the matter.
This case has drawn significant attention to the mechanisms of public aid distribution in Spain, especially in the context of pandemic-era bailouts. The controversy over Plus Ultra's rescue has previously been highlighted, as seen when the airline's president named Zapatero in court filings, raising questions about political influence in the allocation of state funds. For further background on these developments, see the detailed coverage in this earlier report on the Plus Ultra controversy.
Spain's system for granting public aid to struggling companies has faced scrutiny in recent years, particularly regarding transparency and oversight. The SEPI, responsible for managing state participations, played a central role in the Plus Ultra case. The ongoing investigation may influence future procedures for state-backed rescues and could prompt calls for tighter controls. As the legal process continues, the outcome may set important precedents for how political connections are handled in the distribution of public funds.
