The legal battle surrounding the Plus Ultra case has entered a decisive phase: the defense of former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is formally contesting the validity of evidence collected in the investigation. The motion, submitted by his lawyer Víctor Moreno Catena, seeks to nullify core elements of the case and challenges how impressive materials were obtained, analyzed and handled.
Central to the dispute are WhatsApp* (принадлежит Metа, которая признана экстремистской организацией и запрещена в РФ) messages and recorded conversations involving third parties. The defense argues that the material was obtained without adequate judicial oversight and that its collection and dissemination may have infringed Fundamental Rights, including privacy and the secrecy of communications. Judge José Luis Calama of the Audiencia Nacional is overseeing the investigation, in which National Police financial-crime investigators from the Unidad de Delincuencia Económica y Fiscal (UDEF) are examining relationships involving airline executives and intermediaries, as well as companies linked to Zapatero.
The proceedings concern the €53 million rescue approved by Spain’s Council of Ministers on 9 March 2021, during the COVID-19 crisis. The state-backed financing was administered through the Sociedad Estatal de Participaciones Industriales (SEPI) and the Fondo de Ayuda a la Solvencia de Empresas Estratégicas (FASEE). Investigators are examining allegations that political access and intermediary payments may have played a role in efforts to secure the aid. The case remains under investigation; the allegations have not been established as final judicial findings, and the available account does not establish that Zapatero personally intervened in awarding the rescue.
One line of inquiry concerns an alleged payment equivalent to 1% of the rescue, or €530,000. Investigators are examining financial movements involving companies associated with businessman Julio Martínez Martínez, including relevant analysis and Whatthefav, a company linked to Zapatero’s daughters. The investigation is assessing whether payments reflected genuine consultancy work or possible illicit remuneration. Martínez testified to Judge Calama about his role as an intermediary and said he relayed information about the financing process to Zapatero, information from accounts of his testimony. His evidence has not itself established criminal liability for the former prime minister.
Another focus has been jewellery seized by police in Zapatero’s office, which he reportedly attributed to a gift from Saudi Arabia. As part of the proceedings, Judge Calama ordered the Subdirectorate General for State Assets to provide documentation concerning institutional gifts to the Presidency of the Government during the 2004 to 2008 and 2008 to 2011 legislatures. The request included a March 2012 record of acceptance into the assets of the General State Administration, with delivery sought within two days or as soon as possible. The items were later displayed in a manner reminiscent of stolen goods, prompting disputes over their value and appraisal.
The investigative theory also faces denials from people under scrutiny. Dutch financier Simon Lendeert Verhoeven, whom UDEF reports reportedly describe as a possible financial coordinator in efforts to obtain the aid, denied knowing about the rescue operation or participating in money laundering. The allegations under examination include influence peddling, misappropriation, money laundering and membership in a criminal organization; they remain allegations at this investigative stage.
The defense’s strategy has evolved from procedural requests concerning safeguards around recordings to a broader challenge to the investigation’s evidentiary foundation. Judge Calama previously declined to seek further clarification from U.S. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) regarding the chain of custody for the evidence. The defense is pressing for judicial review of whether the collection and use of digital material complied with legal safeguards. The motion’s outcome will determine how the disputed evidence is treated in this case.
The legal challenge comes amid broader debate in Spain about how investigative methods involving digital communications must be reconciled with constitutional rights and a fair defense. The case’s outcome could have implications for the handling of digital evidence in Spanish courts. The debate also echoes recent controversies involving political figures and judicial scrutiny, including when public criticism erupted over the handling of corruption cases linked to PSOE leadership.
The Plus Ultra proceedings test the balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of individual rights. The Audiencia Nacional, Spain’s central criminal court, handles complex criminal investigations, including cases involving public officials and sensitive evidence. As the investigation continues, the court’s assessment of the challenged materials will be basic to determining what evidence can be relied upon and how the case proceeds.
