Spain’s Supreme Court has upheld the convictions of former Transport Minister José Luis Ábalos. His former adviser Koldo García and businessman Víctor de Aldama were also convicted in the so-called mask-procurement case. The Sala de lo Penal issued its judgment on 22 June 2026, following a trial held in April and May. The case concerned the use of political access and Ábalos’s ministerial position in connection with public contracts for masks during the pandemic.
The court sentenced Ábalos to 24 years in prison and García to 19 years and eight months. Aldama received a sentence of four years and six months. The convictions include participation in a criminal organization and corruption-related offences connected to the procurement operation. The operation involved the prioritization of 13 million masks supplied through Aldama’s intermediary role. The reported offences also include misappropriation of public funds. The court addressed influence-peddling and continuing bribery, along with the use of privileged information.
Information from the court’s findings, García acted as a close aide to Ábalos, while Aldama brought business and political connections to the network. The ruling states that Ábalos and García “joined a criminal organization” that exploited the minister’s position for financial gain. It also describes Aldama as bringing connections with Venezuelan politicians to the PSOE. Ábalos’s parliamentary status placed the proceedings within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Spain’s system of special jurisdiction for certain officeholders, known as aforamiento.
The judgment relies on testimony and documentary evidence. The record includes procurement documents and communications. The court accepted Aldama’s testimony because it was supported by “multiple peripheral corroborating elements,” rather than treating his account as the sole basis for the convictions. It also rejected the defendants’ claims that their fundamental rights had been violated.
Aldama’s sentence was suspended subject to conditions. He must avoid further criminal conduct and submit a report on his activities every six months. He must also complete one year of community service. The court’s decision to mitigate his sentence reflected his confession and cooperation with investigators and the courts. Prosecutors had reportedly sought a €3.7 million fine against him, making the outcome a marked contrast with the lengthy custodial terms imposed on Ábalos and García.
The Supreme Court rejected Ábalos’s and García’s requests to annul their convictions in October 2026. A possible appeal to Spain’s Constitutional Court remains open, but it is not an ordinary appeal that re-examines the facts in the same way as a standard appellate proceeding. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction so narrowed the available routes of challenge without eliminating the possibility of constitutional review.
The case has also prompted scrutiny beyond the mask contracts. Spain’s Guardia Civil Central Operative Unit (UCO) has been examining alleged irregularities involving invoices in PSOE accounting records in a separate investigation, in which Aldama reportedly gave statements to a judge. That inquiry is distinct from the Supreme Court convictions and does not itself establish criminal liability in the separate matter.
The judgment adds to Spain’s continuing debate over public procurement and political accountability. It also puts the safeguards governing public office under scrutiny. The case shows how the Supreme Court’s role in proceedings involving officials with parliamentary status can shape both the venue of a trial and the defendants’ subsequent legal options.
The ruling’s political significance has been discussed alongside other high-profile cases involving public figures, including reports on public punishment and political fallout in the valley, available here.
