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 splash 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 conviction of José Luis Ábalos and Koldo García, but because, by boasting about the benefits of opening the Pandora's box, it has become a path to follow for other people. And it is a weak point of Moncloa's defense of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. This very week we have had some examples. 

conviction of José Luis Ábalos and Koldo García, but because, by boasting about the benefits of opening the Pandora's box, it has become a path to follow for other people. And it is a weak point of Moncloa's defense of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. This very week we have had some examples. 

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

Cascading, the defense line of Pedro Sánchez's squire was collapsing, who denies from day one having influenced it and having spoken with anyone to facilitate the rescue. He told this to the judge and repeated it on Thursday in the first interview he has given since he was indicted. Despite this, the PSOE tries not to be alarmed and to maintain caution with the first revelations that call Zapatero's version into question. The party's 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". That is to say, repentance is not necessary, but rather to facilitate things. 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 for obtaining evidence that would be "difficult" to find through other means. The high court concluded with an invitation to anyone who wished 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, about 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 informant in the Koldo case and who testified as a witness in the Leire case two weeks ago. He has now sent a new letter to the National Court recalling that a month ago he already claimed – without proof – that the commission in exchange for the Plus Ultra rescue was actually 20%. “This is data that should interest the investigation,” says the letter, to which ARA has had access.

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

Or another name: Juan Sánchez Yepes, a Civil Guard captain implicated 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 emphasized that he has “nothing to do” with either the PSOE or the PP. For the moment, there is no record of him having made any attempt to confess, and his lawyer is Jacobo Teijelo, a collaborator of Leire Díez, which may discourage hypothetical cooperation.

The Supreme's guideline

The Supreme Court believes that Pol Olivet made a “warning to navigators” and summarizes the ruling 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.” It maintains that there has been no “abrupt change,” but rather that the ruling “has reaffirmed” the 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” of the “requirements” for the co-defendant's statement: “It cannot be the only evidence, but there must be more external corroborations because he is not obliged to tell the truth. Previously, it was considered suspicious evidence.” Along the same lines, 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 reservations. “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 provided 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, “to size up” the scope of the criminal organization, and “to foster and facilitate” other investigations, such as the Santos Cerdán case. Josep Maria Tamarit emphasizes that “the entire trajectory” of the investigated individuals who have collaborated will have to be assessed and it will be observed whether 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 utility.” However, he warns that Julio Martínez Martínez's first statement was “generalist.” “It’s no good just saying you participated, you will have to provide conversations, recordings, or contracts. That is what will be relevant for criminal purposes,” he warns. In this sense, the two main 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 nullify.