Zapatero's influences

MadridThe intensity of the political earthquake caused in the ranks of the left by Zapatero's indictment is pending a whole series of legal questions. Amidst the avalanche of information, a large part of the public can barely get an idea of what is happening or form a judgment on the former president's integrity. For now, we know the summary and the indictment order. That is, all investigations carried out so far and the conclusions the judge draws from them. He is accused of two crimes: influence peddling and money laundering. The relevant one is the first because money laundering is only a crime if it comes from a prior illicit activity.

Influence peddling, basically, consists of trying to guide a public authority to make a certain decision. It doesn't matter if it's done for payment or not, it's even irrelevant if the final decision is legally correct or not, or even if what was sought was achieved. However, it is not enough to organize a meeting or act as an intermediary. For it to be a crime, it is essential to have expressly tried to influence the will of the decision-maker. That is why these days there is so much talk about the fine line that separates the activity of lobbyists, which consists of defending the merits of a decision, from influence peddling, in which the will of the official is directly affected. The investigations carried out so far are not conclusive regarding whether the former president has committed the crime.

Through conversations with other people, it is deduced that he put the directors of an airline in contact with authorities responsible for deciding whether or not to grant aid. In the intercepted messages, the company director often speaks of resorting to him to circumvent difficulties in the rescue application, but it is not clear what this intervention would consist of. It is also known that both Zapatero and his daughters received money from people close to the scheme. An employer friend received up to seven hundred thousand euros who could have acted as an interposed intermediary, although it is not evident that it was for having influenced any public decision. This employer participated in other dealings such as the release of prisoners acting on behalf of the former president, but this does not mean that he also did so when negotiating with the alleged corrupt scheme. The judge also considers it probable that the president considered creating a company abroad that could be used to receive and conceal payments for his activities, but it is not even clear that it was carried out.

Advisory tasks

All this is evidence that he may have participated in a influence peddling scheme or even led it. But they are not proof, because all this data may have a non-criminal explanation. Zapatero alleges that he was only paid for advisory tasks. At the time, he declared to the Tax Agency everything he earned, and it is possible that they paid him to limit himself to indicating who they should speak to, how to present their requests, or even to help them contact certain authorities. None of this would be a crime.

Now judicial authorities, with the help of the police, are trying to obtain real evidence. They could find some indirect evidence such as payments in cash or in kind that do not have a clear origin, that do not constitute payment for any report, or that are disproportionate for legitimate tasks. If direct evidence were found, guilt would be more evident, such as messages in which the former president or his inner circle admitted to having influenced an authority. Even evidence that he met with ministers or authorities who were to make decisions and he spoke in favor of the businessmen. As of now, there is none of that. This is what is being sought in the searches being carried out these days. As far as we know, lists of addresses, emails, and even the famous jewelry have been found. It is up to the judges to analyze it all to see if it can be proven that there were meetings to influence or payments.

Since the evidence we know may have various explanations, it will be particularly interesting to see what the defendant himself provides in his next judicial statement and the documentation he will provide to justify them. He may be able to prove that the jewelry and other confiscated items were in his possession previously and have a legitimate origin. He may provide the advisory reports for which he has received payments. Eventually, he could even provide messages denying directly influencing someone. It should be anticipated that the judge will ask him about each of the proven operations and about the conversations we know, so we will see if he provides a reasonable and non-criminal alternative explanation.

If his clarifications turn out to be convincing, it may be that he will not even be prosecuted. It is an unlikely but possible scenario. Otherwise, the case will eventually go to trial and a court will decide. Here the former president will have enough to sow reasonable doubt. The right to the presumption of innocence means that what needs to be proven is not guilt, so if there is a possible and lawful explanation for all of this, he will not be convicted. Another matter is whether at this point he can still recover a moral prestige so seriously damaged.