What has become of Zapatero's jewels?

MadridOn May 19, early in the morning, a piece of news exploded like an unexpected shell: a judge from the National High Court charged José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero as the alleged leader of an influence peddling scheme. A month later, he, who in recent years has been Pedro Sánchez's loyal squire and guardian, testified before José Luis Calama for almost three hours and denied all suspicions root and branch. But he left one topic unaddressed: the jewelry worth 1.3 million euros that the Spanish police found in the safe of his office. A week later, the UDEF opened a new avenue and suggested that Zapatero received 200,000 euros for influencing in Bolivia in favor of a Peruvian company. Since then, leaks and complaints from the former Spanish president's defense have been the only news in a case shrouded in many unknowns. From that moment on, and despite the lingering questions, Moncloa maintains its unwavering support for the former Spanish president and Pedro Sánchez reiterates his "confidence" in him.

An unfulfilled deadline

During the judicial hearing, behind closed doors, Zapatero informed Judge Calama that he would be willing to testify about the jewelry within a week or ten days, "at the latest." In the statement he later sent to the press, he also pledged to give "appropriate explanations" in the following days. In a document filed that same day, he requested "a little temporal leeway" to be able to "examine" the expert report and to explain with "precision and certainty" the origin of the jewelry and the dates on which it came into his possession. But a month has passed and nothing more has been heard.

Role of the Tax Agency

In fact, the big news of the last few weeks has to do with jewelry. It has become known that the Tax Agency opened a tax investigation to the Shoemaker, his two daughters – who are also being investigated– and his wife in mid-June. It became known at the end of June, when she communicated it to Judge Calama. Analyze, for example, the IRPF of all four between 2021 and 2024. At that time, the Treasury acknowledged that the simultaneity of the two investigations – the criminal and the tax one – led it to suspend its inspection so as not to overlap and because the National Court has "more intense and more effective" capabilities for investigation. But it pointed out that the "suspension" would only be possible if the magistrate ordered it and warned that it would keep it open until it received an official communication. For now, the judge has not ruled.

Zapatero is the one who has raised his finger, who a few days later protested –precisely– this duplication and complained that the Treasury decided “unilaterally and capriciously” to launch an investigation despite a criminal case having been opened: “To be aware that the procedure should be suspended and not do so is a manifest, blatant, and ostentatious arbitrariness,” he denounced. The State Attorney's Office is joined as a private prosecution in the National High Court on behalf of the Tax Agency after the judge offered it to him seeing that she could be a "potential victim".

What will be the next steps?

One of the files that José Luis Calama has to move soon – perhaps upon returning from vacation – are the statements of Zapatero's two daughters and his secretary. All three are under investigation, but have not yet been summoned to explain themselves. The magistrate believes that the company of Alba Rodríguez and Laura Rodríguez had an "instrumental role" in the "channeling, concealment or facilitation of relevant operations" of the alleged scheme and considers that Gertrudis Alcázar was an "essential operational piece".

Another issue on the table is the nullity incident that Zapatero filed to try to annul the case. So far, his strategy has been eminently procedural: that is, to try to derail the investigation on grounds of form. Indeed, his defense accused the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office of instigating "maneuvers aimed at leading the process" towards the judicial bodies of "greatest convenience" and questioned that the main evidence incriminating the former Spanish president is "unlawful" because it emerged as a result of an "unauthorized interference".