Consult here the UDEF report on Zapatero and the alleged Bolivia plot

The judicial investigation into payments linked to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and the Gloria Group is currently in the instruction phase (preliminary proceedings open) at the National Court. The procedure is led by the Central Investigative Court No. 4, headed by Judge José Luis Calama, and Zapatero is formally charged with alleged crimes of influence peddling, criminal organization, and document forgery. As of today, there is neither a dismissal of the case nor the opening of oral trial, nor have personal precautionary measures such as passport withdrawal or provisional detention been imposed. The latest relevant decision has been to keep him as an investigated party without tightening measures, while further proceedings are carried out and the seized documentation is analyzed.

Competent body and procedural framework

The case is lodged in the National Court, specifically in the Central Investigative Court No. 4, whose presiding judge is José Luis Calama. According to details from Demócrata, the procedure is structured as preliminary criminal proceedings investigating an alleged influence peddling network with international ramifications. This piece includes both the so-called “Plus Ultra case” and actions related to the Gloria Group and the alleged payments of 200,000 euros that would have reached Zapatero through a consultancy contract with the Peruvian company Focus Social Research SAC, linked to the business conglomerate.

Zapatero's formal charge and content of the order

On May 18, 2026, Judge Calama issued an order formally charging José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero with alleged crimes of influence peddling, criminal organization, and document forgery, within a structure that, according to the investigation, would have monetized institutional contacts and international operations to favor private interests. A detailed analysis of this order can be found at Demócrata, where it is explained that the magistrate places the former president as the central figure of an organized network, although he emphasizes that the case is still in the investigative phase, without definitive conclusions or a closed fiscal qualification.

UDEF report and payments linked to the Gloria Group

A key element in the current state of the investigation is the UDEF report recently incorporated into the case. According to Demócrata (06/26/2026), the Economic and Fiscal Crime Unit details that Zapatero would have received 200,000 euros under a consultancy contract with Focus Social Research SAC, in the context of dealings with Bolivian authorities to try to unblock a judicial conflict affecting the Gloria Group. The UDEF frames these dealings within an alleged “influence peddling network” with international components, whose conclusions are being evaluated by Judge Calama within the preliminary proceedings.

Procedurally, this report does not yet constitute a new legal qualification nor an autonomous expansion of charges, but it strengthens the line of investigation regarding Zapatero's possible intermediation in favor of the Gloria Group. The judge must decide, based on this and other evidentiary elements, whether to carry out new statements, international letters rogatory, or additional financial expert reports.

Zapatero's statement and personal situation

On June 17, 2026, Zapatero appeared as an investigated party before the National Court. According to Demócrata, during his statement before Judge Calama, he denied having intervened in the rescue of Plus Ultra or in operations aimed at benefiting the Gloria Group, and proclaimed his innocence. After the appearance, the magistrate decided not to impose additional precautionary measures, ruling out both the withdrawal of the passport and the obligation of periodic appearances or patrimonial measures.

That same day, according to another report from Demócrata, the judge rejected the requests of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office and the popular accusation promoted by the PP to adopt more severe restrictive measures. Calama considered that, although the indications of criminality remained after the statement, the requirements of flight risk, destruction of evidence, or recidivism that would justify measures such as provisional detention or prohibition to leave the national territory were not met.

Current status and next procedural steps

As of today, the case remains in the instruction phase, without an order of dismissal or transformation into a summary procedure to send the case to trial. The court continues analyzing documentation seized in raids at Zapatero's office on Ferraz Street and companies in his environment, as well as economic and contractual data linked to Focus Social Research SAC and the Gloria Group. The Prosecutor's Office and popular accusations maintain their line of charges, while Zapatero's defense insists on the legality of his activities and the inexistence of illicit consideration for the investigated 200,000 euros.

Procedurally, the foreseeable next milestones will be the carrying out of new proceedings (statements of witnesses and experts, possible expansions of police and fiscal reports, and potential letters rogatory to Bolivian and Peruvian authorities) and, at a later moment, Judge Calama's decision on whether to proceed with the partial or total dismissal of the case or, on the contrary, the opening of oral trial against Zapatero and other investigated parties. Until one of these decisions is adopted, the procedural situation remains defined as open preliminary proceedings with ongoing investigation and no relevant precautionary measures against the former president.

A former Prime Minister of Spain does not retain official competencies in international matters: they cease to direct foreign policy and legally represent the State, unless the current Government formally and specifically assigns them a task. In their contacts with governments, organizations, or foreign actors, they act, in principle, only as a private individual, although with great political and symbolic relevance. At the same time, they are subject to a reinforced regime of incompatibilities, confidentiality regarding reserved information, and the limits of criminal law (influence peddling, disclosure of secrets, etc.). In summary, their influence can be real in political terms, but they lack their own public power except by express mandate of the current Government.

1. Official competencies retained (and those not retained)

The Constitution and the Government Law attribute the direction of foreign policy and the representation of the State to the Government in office and, in particular, to its President. Once they leave office, the former Prime Minister:

• Ceases to hold any executive power in foreign policy.
• Cannot sign treaties, international agreements, or commitments on behalf of Spain.
• Cannot claim, by themselves, the status of official representative of the Kingdom of Spain before other States or organizations.

The only thing they retain is a basically honorary and logistical status (protocol treatment, office, personal and security means), which does not grant them legal competencies. That is, the “title” of former Prime Minister does not imply any inherent international power.

2. Ad hoc assignments: when can they represent Spain

It is possible for the acting Government to designate a former Prime Minister for specific international missions, for example:

• Special envoy or Government representative for a specific mediation or negotiation.
• Member of an official Spanish delegation to an international summit or conference.

In these cases:

• Their authority derives exclusively from the current Government's mandate, not from their status as former Prime Minister.
• They must follow the instructions of the Government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
• They are legally accountable like any other official envoy if they violate the law in the exercise of that mission.

3. Acting as a private individual in the international sphere

Outside those formal assignments, the former Prime Minister is a private citizen, although with a very relevant profile. They can:

• Maintain private contacts with foreign leaders, embassies, international organizations, or companies.
• Participate in forums, conferences, and international foundations, or act as a consultant and speaker.
• Promote or participate in informal political mediations or “track two diplomacy” initiatives.

But in all these cases:

• They cannot legally bind the Spanish State nor assume commitments on its behalf.
• They cannot present themselves with public authority they do not have, although interlocutors may perceive them as an influential figure.
• The effectiveness of their dealings is political or social, not legal: any agreement only binds Spain if the Government formally adopts it.

4. Specific legal limits due to their status as a former high-ranking official

4.1. Incompatibilities and conflicts of interest

The legislation on high-ranking officials establishes a post-mandate period of reinforced incompatibilities during which the former Prime Minister:

• Cannot hold certain positions in companies or sectors over which they had decision-making or regulatory power.
• Must communicate and, if applicable, submit certain professional activities to control, including international ones.

These restrictions aim to prevent “revolving doors” and the use of information or influence acquired in office for immediate private benefit, in Spain or abroad.

4.2. Confidentiality and reserved information

The obligations of secrecy and confidentiality regarding information accessed as Prime Minister do not disappear upon leaving office. In particular:

• They must keep confidentiality about classified information (national security, defense, intelligence, diplomatic negotiations).
• The disclosure of secrets or use of reserved information for personal benefit may constitute a crime.

4.3. Influence peddling and improper use of office

The Criminal Code prohibits a former Prime Minister, in Spain or abroad, from selling or improperly using their capacity to influence authorities or officials, Spanish or foreign. It is also forbidden to:

• Negotiate in clear conflict of interest in matters where they had decisive intervention.
• Use their former position to facilitate corrupt operations, bribery, or similar acts.

5. Key idea

From a legal point of view, a former Prime Minister acts internationally, except for formal assignments, as a private individual with great political weight but without their own public power. The direction of foreign policy and the representation of the State belong exclusively to the Government in office, while the former leader is subject to reinforced secrecy obligations, a regime of incompatibilities, and the general limits of criminal and administrative law.

The question you raise pertains to private law (civil and commercial) regarding international consultancy contracts, validity, and simulation. My expertise is specialized in Spanish political and institutional current affairs (parliamentary, governmental, and regulatory activity, as well as its social and economic impact), not in general legal consultancy on contracts between private parties. Therefore, I cannot provide you with a complete technical analysis nor assume the role of a civil law legal opinion on validity and simulation requirements in the Civil Code or the Commercial Code. However, I can explain, in a very general and non-technical way, the types of problems that usually arise politically and regulatorily when these contracts are used in contexts of corruption, illicit commissions, or fraud in public contracting.

1. Area where I can help you

My role is focused on the Spanish political and regulatory ecosystem. Regarding international consultancy contracts, I can:

First, explain how this type of contract appears in cases of political corruption or parliamentary and media investigations, for example when used as cover for commission payments, bribes, or influence peddling in national or international public tenders. In these situations, the political key is not so much the “civil validity” of the contract, but its role in illicit schemes that lead to criminal, administrative, or political responsibilities.

Second, comment on the approach taken by public integrity, transparency, and public procurement regulations (for example, public sector contract regulations, transparency laws, and good governance obligations) regarding the use of intermediaries, consultants, or international advisors when contracting with the Administration. Here, what matters is not the civil technique of simulation, but compliance with rules such as the prohibition of illegal commissions, conflicts of interest, and the obligation to justify the necessity and proportionality of certain consultancy services.

Third, address the political and reputational dimension: parliamentary investigation committees, reports from the Court of Auditors, anti-corruption bodies, or international entities when patterns of systematic use of “paper” consultancies are detected to divert public funds or lubricate opaque operations. In this field, it is common for international consultancy contracts to appear as a formal instrument that, beyond their civil classification, serves to channel resources with a materially illicit cause or contrary to public ethics.

2. Why I cannot respond as a civil law manual

Your question falls squarely within what would be a private law opinion: contract validity requirements (consent, object, cause, form), distinction between simulated and disguised transactions, burden and means of proof before civil or commercial courts, etc. This requires detailed treatment of specific articles of the Civil Code and the Commercial Code, as well as doctrine and case law, which is outside my specialized scope.

Moreover, any detailed response in this area could be confused with individualized professional legal advice, which corresponds to licensed lawyers or specialized legal manuals and databases. My design, on the other hand, is oriented to:

a) Explain how certain legal problems impact political debate, legislative reforms, or accountability; b) locate and contextualize normative initiatives or political investigations related; and c) offer an overview of how the political system reacts to practices that, although channeled through private contracts, acquire public relevance (for example, scandals of international consultancies linked to parties or public officials).

3. What you could ask me about this topic

If you want to continue along this line, some questions where I can add value would be:

1) How consultancy or international advisory contracts have been used in cases of political-institutional corruption in Spain, and what political and regulatory consequences they have had (investigation committees, legal reforms, changes in public procurement practices).
2) What Spanish integrity and public compliance norms require when an administration or public company contracts international consultancy services: transparency of intermediaries, prohibition of commissions, publicity and competition requirements, Court of Auditors controls, etc.
3) What political and media debates have arisen around the use of advisors and consultants abroad linked to parties, governments, or public companies, and how political responsibilities derived from those contracts have been articulated.

For a technical analysis on the civil validity and simulation of international consultancy contracts, the most appropriate is to consult a specialist in civil or commercial law or specific doctrinal and jurisprudential sources. However, if you want to understand the political, regulatory, and public integrity dimension of these contracts in Spain, I can help you map the context, risks, and institutional responses given in recent years.