The new Aldamas become the PSOE's blind spot

MadridWhen on February 21, 2024, the Civil Guard arrested him, Víctor de Aldama was president of Zamora CF and his name had never appeared related to the Spanish government. Two and a half years later, his “active” collaboration in the judicial investigations that tarnish Pedro Sánchez has turned him into a ticking time bomb for the PSOE. Not only because of the “full and continuous cooperation” with justice that has led to the "condemnation of José Luis Ábalos and Koldo García, but because, boasting of the benefits of stretching the blanket, it has become a path to follow for other people. And it is a weak point of the defense that Moncloa, under José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, puts up. This very week we have had some examples. 

“It represents a very forceful message and a very solid precedent that has had an immediate response with this behavior, rushing to show the willingness to collaborate,” summarizes the Professor of Criminal Law at UOC, Josep Maria Tamarit. And it is that on Monday, on the eve of having to testify before the judge, Julio Martínez Martínez, a friend of the former Spanish president for years, communicated to José Luis Calama his willingness to “contribute to the clarification” of the facts and let slip a first hint about the Plus Ultra rescue: “It was Zapatero who set the steps to follow.” He was not the only one. The now former president of the airline, Julio Martínez Sola, assured that knocking on Zapatero's door was a “desperate measure” to obtain public aid.

Cascadingly, the defense line of Pedro Sánchez's squire was crumbling, who denies from day one having influenced it and having spoken with anyone to facilitate the rescue. He told this to the magistrate and repeated it on Thursday in the first interview he has given since he was indicted. Despite this, the PSOE tries not to panic and maintain caution with the first revelations that cast doubt on Zapatero's version. The party president, Cristina Narbona, for example, asked on Wednesday not to "rush" to "take for granted" anything that "any indicted person" says.

Josep Maria Tamarit alleges that the strategy inaugurated by Aldama and now followed by other investigated individuals responds to a criminal policy "based on pragmatism rather than moral principles." In other words, repentance is not necessary, but rather to make things easier. In fact, this was one of the Supreme Court's arguments, which alleged that the collaboration of those involved "saves investigation efforts" and "facilitates the instruction" of the case. Furthermore, it allows obtaining evidence that would be "difficult" to find through other means. The high court concluded with an invitation to whoever wanted to feel addressed: "Attitudes of collaboration must be rewarded to achieve the purification of corrupt conduct."

The appearance of new names

“There will probably be more people who want to join,” believes Pol Olivet, a criminal lawyer at Bages & Olivet, regarding the Supreme Court ruling. And so it has been. In recent days, a new name has emerged: José Luis Caramés, a businessman who is one step away from sitting on the defendant's bench for a hydrocarbons case, who was the first confidant in the Koldo case and who testified as a witness in the Leire case two weeks ago. He has now sent a new brief to the National Court recalling that a month ago he already claimed – without proof – that the commission in exchange for the Plus Ultra bailout was actually 20%. “This is data that should interest the investigation,” says the brief, which ARA has accessed.

In fact, one of the open questions that still hangs is whether another profile could emerge: potential names include second-tier defendants whose confession would facilitate catching a figure of a higher rank. Some examples. Will Leire Díez decide to explain untold details about the alleged maneuvers to destabilize judicial cases involving the PSOE circles? Will she reveal if there was anyone above Santos Cerdán who gave her orders or to whom she reported her roadmap? In a similar situation – cautiously – we could place Vicente Fernández, former president of SEPI, or Antxon Alonso, a Navarrese businessman and friend of Santos Cerdán. Both are under investigation by the National Court and shared the Hirurok group with the so-called plumber of the PSOE. So far, few details of their defense strategy have emerged.

Or another name: Juan Sánchez Yepes, a Civil Guard captain indicted in the Leire case and who is one step away from being tried for the same hydrocarbons case as Caramés. A month and a half ago, in an interview, he reported being the victim of a “horrible persecution” that has “morally destroyed” him and stressed that he has “nothing to do” with either the PSOE or the PP. For now, there is no record of him having made any attempt to spill the beans, and his lawyer is Jacobo Teijelo, a collaborator of Leire Díez, which could discourage hypothetical collaboration.

The Supreme's guideline

The Supreme Court, according to Pol Olivet, issued a “warning to sailors” and summarizes the sentence as follows: “You are assuming facts without knowing how they will end and, thanks to you, we are learning how the organization worked and, above all, contextualizing what we already have.” He maintains that there has been no “abrupt change,” but rather that the sentence “has reaffirmed” jurisprudence: “It has simplified it and made it more didactic.”

On the other hand, sources from Koldo García's defense consulted by ARA are confident that the Constitutional Court will “return to the previous doctrine” regarding the “requirements” for the co-defendant's statement: “It cannot be the only evidence; there must be more external corroborations because he is not obliged to tell the truth. Previously, it was considered suspicious evidence.” In the same vein, José Luis Ábalos's nullity incident also denounced that Aldama's version, whom he called an “interested, rewarded, and intensely incentivized” co-defendant, has not been “corroborated” by any “external data” and complained that his “self-incrimination” was the “guarantee of veracity” when, in reality, it allowed him not to go to prison.

The dimension of collaboration

The experts consulted by ARA raise some caveats. “It is not enough to collaborate, collaboration must be effective,” emphasizes Josep Maria Tamarit. Therefore, it is not enough to declare the will to cooperate, but the information supplied must be relevant. In the case of Víctor de Aldama, the Supreme Court valued an “especially decisive” collaboration by providing “significant data” to identify those responsible, “size up” the scope of the criminal organization, and “promote and foster” other investigations, such as the Santos Cerdán case. Josep Maria Tamarit stresses that it will be necessary to assess “the entire trajectory” of the investigated individuals who have collaborated and observe if they have been “coherent” and have helped in a “clear” and “unreserved” manner.

Along the same lines, criminal lawyer Víctor Ávila points to a “requirement of relevance” of the collaboration and a “criterion of usefulness”. However, he warns that Julio Martínez Martínez’s first statement was “generalist”. “It’s not enough to just say you participated, you’ll have to provide conversations, recordings, or contracts. That’s what will be relevant for criminal purposes,” he warns. In this regard, the two main former executives of Plus Ultra, who will have to testify as investigated parties in the second week of September, have provided the chats in which Zapatero’s role is discussed, which are one of the key pieces of evidence against the former president and which he wants to annul.