The judge of the National Court José Luis Calama places the former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero as the alleged leader of “a stable and hierarchical structure of influence peddling” whose purpose “is the obtaining of economic benefits through intermediation and the exercise of influence before public bodies in favor of third parties, mainly Plus Ultra.”
Read more The judge lifts the secrecy of the proceedings with the search of Zapatero’s office
According to the magistrate, this network used shell companies, simulated documentation, and opaque financial channels “to exercise illicit influence, hide the origin and destination of funds, and obtain economic benefits in favor of third parties and the network itself.”
Calama maintains that Rodríguez Zapatero provided the influence and his friend, businessman Julio Martínez, was the link with the companies, which then paid for it, specifically Plus Ultra. Therefore, he would have been paid through the corporate network of the latter but being the ultimate beneficiary the former Prime Minister.
“In this structure, according to the judge, Julio Martínez would play a relevant role at different levels: as the usual interlocutor of the network’s clients, as the receiver and executor of direct instructions from Rodríguez Zapatero, and also as responsible for a corporate network intended to channel the funds received from said clients.”
The transfer of these funds to the corporate environment would have been formalized, adds Calama, through contracts, generally advisory or consultancy, used as mere documentary justification before third parties. The “main ultimate beneficiary” of the income obtained, the order indicates, would be José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, as well as the company Whathefav SL, whose administrators and partners are his daughters, “again resorting to contracts of a similar nature to justify the transfer of funds.”
According to the money trail, most of the profit obtained by the network for achieving the airline’s bailout ended up in Zapatero’s hands. Martínez’s company, Análisis Relevante, would have sent 490,780 euros to the former president and 239,755 euros to Whathefav, his daughters’ company. “Most of the funds received by Análisis Relevante − coming from Plus Ultra, Inteligencia Prospectiva, Softgestor, and Grupo Aldesa − ended up in Rodríguez Zapatero’s environment,” it states.
Additionally, he would have used a non-profit think tank, whose advisory board is chaired by the former president, to collect commissions. Specifically, the Gate Center would have sent 352,980 euros to the former president and 171,727 euros to Whathefav, while companies from the Thinking Heads group, linked to Daniel Romero-Abreu Kaup – president of the entity -, would have sent 681,318 euros to Rodríguez Zapatero and 12,297 euros to his daughters’ company.
In the order agreeing to summon Rodríguez Zapatero as an investigated party for June 2, Calama points out that the investigation has confirmed the existence of “an organized network of illicit influence peddling, structurally organized and led by Rodríguez Zapatero, who would have put his personal contacts and his access capacity to high-ranking Administration officials at the service” of businessmen to obtain “favorable decisions.”
According to the judge, Zapatero provided the influence and businessmen Manuel Aaron Fajardo García – son of a former socialist senator and personal friend of the former president – and Julio Martínez Martínez were the direct intermediaries with the clients, for example with Plus Ultra to obtain the bailout. Furthermore, he points to the alleged participation of the former president’s secretary María Gertrudis Alcázar and Cristóbal Cano. All this reveals, for the judge, “a functional division of tasks aimed at maximizing the effectiveness of dealings with public bodies.”
In an 85-page order, the magistrate – who joined the case in March after the inhibition of a Madrid court – maintains that the evidence in the case would demonstrate that the influence exercised was not aimed at obtaining a general treatment or an indeterminate expectation, but at achieving a specific administrative resolution: the approval and disbursement of the public aid requested by Plus Ultra within the framework of the Solvency Support Fund.
This is what, for the judge, marks the difference between lobbying and influence peddling. Zapatero’s management would be directly aimed at benefiting Plus Ultra with aid of 53 million for its bailout in 2021. Part of the evidence was obtained after analyzing the records and documentation seized from Julio Martínez during the operation carried out by the UDEF and the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office in December of last year.
“The temporal sequence of meetings, contacts, and communications − including early access to privileged information about the imminent granting of the aid − evidences that the network acted with the specific purpose of influencing the decision of the competent body,” the resolution states.
The investigation also reveals that the investigated parties were paid for these dealings through Martínez’s corporate network by means of advisory contracts prepared ‘ad hoc’ and direct and indirect payments from Plus Ultra and other linked companies.
In his opinion, the use of shell companies such as Caletón Consultores and Summer Wind demonstrates the “triangulation of payments” and the participation of administrators acting as front men, which reinforce the appearance of a structure designed to hide the origin and destination of the funds.
In the order, the judge explains that the top executives of Plus Ultra used “mechanisms outside the legally established channels” to achieve the bailout. For this, they used two routes. The first was through the then Minister of Transport José Luis Ábalos and the second through Rodríguez Zapatero. According to the judge, the one that finally succeeded was that of the former president.
To reach this conclusion, the investigators have reconstructed calls and messages from February 2021, “when two of the investigated parties celebrated in a message exchange the granting of aid to Plus Ultra before the formal decision of the Management Council and its final approval which took place on March 9.”
The contact of Plus Ultra with Rodríguez Zapatero’s environment, the order says, “was not casual.” On the contrary: “it fits into the existence of an organized network of illicit influence peddling, led by him, which selects clients, gives instructions to create companies in offshore territories, and adopts strategies to formally dissociate from the structure.”
In fact, Calama points out that the socialist former president gave orders to his secretary for the establishment of a company in Dubai (Landside Dubai Fzco or Landside Middle East Fzco), whose business plan foresaw revenues of 3 million dollars in five years. This company, in turn, would be wholly owned by the Spanish company Idella Consulenza Strategica, managed by Julio Martínez.
“The temporal proximity between the establishment of said company and the signing of the contract by which Idella was to receive 530,000 euros (1% of the public bailout) − without record of payment in Spain − reinforces the hypothesis that the company in Dubai was created to receive funds abroad, avoiding their traceability in Spanish territory,” he maintains.
In fact, due to this operation, the magistrate considers that the door can be opened to investigate the entire network for money laundering: “especially regarding the creation of shell companies in low-transparency jurisdictions, the use of fiduciary structures to hide the real ownership, the channeling of funds through accounts or financial products located abroad, and the deliberate disconnection between the origin of the funds and their final destination.”
Calama indicates that the bailout of Plus Ultra was not the only operation carried out but that they also made arrangements in Venezuela to guarantee the company’s flights there. Specifically, Rodríguez Zapatero would have deployed his influence before the National Institute of Civil Aeronautics (INAC) of Venezuela.
Read more The Government defends that «there is no evidence» that could incriminate Zapatero
